REVIEW 



OF 



'REV. J. B. JETER'S BOOK 



cc 



CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED." 



BY 



MOSES E. LAKD, 



H 

OF MIS SO URL 



WITH AN INI^ODUCTION 

BY ALEXANDEB CAMPBELL, 

OF BETHANY, VA. 




PHILADELPHIA: 
J. B. L1PPINCOTT & CO. 

1857. 



m* 
\ 



'■& 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by 
MOSES E. LARD, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States in and for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania. 






3 

"7 

o 



PEEFACE. 



In the work here offered to the public, the writer has had 
two objects in view : — 1st, to furnish a reply to the material 
parts of " Campbellism Examined;" 2d, to present a com- 
pressed vindication of the chief doctrines therein attacked. 

In endeavoring to execute the former task, he has aimed 
to present, with what he believes to be an equitable fullness, 
and with as much order as was attainable in the case, what 
he supposed Mr. Jeter himself would deem the strong points 
of his work, and to reply to these without evasion or injustice. 
He may not always have understood, in the sense in which 
its author intended it to be understood, the position or the 
argument he has replied to ; but, if in any instance such has 
been the case, he claims to say that the error has not been 
intentional at least. The confusion amidst which these posi- 
tions have had to be sought, and the rubbish in which they 
have been found embedded, have made a clean elimination 
and clear presentation of them at times not a little difficult. 
It is believed, however, that no important argument has been 
permitted to pass without notice ; while many have received 
notice far beyond their claims. 

In attempting to execute the latter task, one end constantly 
kept in view has been to state the position to be defended 
with the utmost clearness, drawing such distinctions and sub- 

iii 



IV PREFACE. 

mitting such qualifications as would tend to free it from any 
existing doubt or ambiguity. The arguments then presented 
are believed to be at least valid and pertinent ; but whether 
conclusive or not is left with the candid reader to decide. 
Some of these arguments, be it said, are not intended so 
much to establish the immediate question at issue, as to pre- 
pare the mind for others better adapted to that end. Still, all 
are thought to be important and necessary. 

A work similar in object to the present has been for some 
time past impatiently looked for from quite another quarter. 
The immense labors, however, which have accumulated on 
Mr. Campbell's hands, have rendered it utterly impracticable 
for him to comply with this just expectation. This is much 
to be regretted. The present work is not an attempt to 
accomplish what he would have done. It is, however, an 
attempt to do all that it is believed the merits of the case 
demand, and that, too, with a view to leaving him to prosecute 
far more important labors. And, while the public will hardly 
feel inclined to acquit the writer for presuming to do what it 
was just possible even might have been done by a hand so 
much more competent, still, he begs that it will be remem- 
bered that, had not this much been attempted, it is almost 
certain nothing would have been realized, — at least without 
almost superhuman efforts. Mr. Campbell has not lacked the 
will to gratify the public expectation, but he has certainly 
lacked the power. 

Should it be inquired why it is that the present work 
makes its appearance at so late a date, the reply is, that it 
has not been felt to be in the slightest degree necessary to be 
in haste. It was meet that Mr. Jeter's book should be allowed 
ample time to do its work. Meanwhile, all has been calm in 



PREFACE. V 

our ranks. No defections have occurred, no dissatisfaction 
has prevailed, no alarm existed. Hence, no peculiar neces- 
sity was felt to be in haste to repel an attack from which no 
perceptible injury was accruing. 

But the reader will doubtless feel curious to know why it is 
that Mr. Jeter's second book — "Campbellism Re-examined" 
— has been treated so cavalierly. The writer's reply is simply 
that he has seen and read the swaggering little thing : should 
a more elaborate reason be demanded, that reason must be 
sought in the character of the silence with which the work is 
passed. 

In citing the passages of Scripture introduced into the pre- 
sent work, the book, chapter, and verse, in which each can 
be found, has not, except in a very few cases, been referred 
to. This course has been adopted for two reasons : — 1st, the 
passages are generally such as most readers may be presumed 
familiar with, in which case no reference is needed : 2d, refer- 
ences, even when given, are rarely ever consulted ; for this 
reason it was not thought necessary to consume space with 
them. 

Liberty, Missouri, 1857. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The first and the last course of the spiritual banquet of Old- 
School or New-School Baptists — whether Gillite, Fullerite, or 
Sandemanian, English, Scotch, German, or American — is the 
New Birth , technically called Regeneration. What the Re- 
former Luther affirmed of justification by faith, they affirm of 
some indefinable idea called by them " Regeneration.' ; It is 
their criterion of a standing or a falling church. Yet this 
word, occurring only twice in Holy Writ, in neither case 
refers to their conception or definition of regeneration. The 
Messiah in all his teachings alludes to it only once, and then 
in reference to the literal resurrection of the dead in Christ, — 
Matt. xix. 28. Paul once, in allusion to baptism, calls it the 
"washing of the New Birth/' and not that New Birth itself 
of which he speaks. 

But it is not the fact of the New Birth, but the theory of 
it, that has become the apple of discord and contention, even 
among the orthodox themselves. There have been sundry 
ecclesiastic patents issued in theological schools for diverse 
modern theories of the spiritual modus operandi in all cases 
of genuine regeneration. One theory glories in pure spiritual 
contact or impact of spirit upon spirit, in some indescribable 
way — as a potter's hand upon clay — new-moulding it, ante- 
cedent to faith and independent of it. Another assumes that 
regeneration is effected by the mere word of God, through its 
own inherent power upon the understanding, the conscience, 
and the heart. Another class contends for both the word 
and the Spirit co-operating; and even here there are two 
schools of theological metaphysicians, — one assuming that the 
word is first in order, the other, that the Spirit is first in order, 



Vlll INTRODUCTION. 

— the word working by the Spirit, the Spirit working by the 
word. Such may not be precisely their terminology, but such 
is virtually our conception of their theory. In this, as in all 
other cases, we prefer the inspired nomenclature to the unin- 
spired. The Messiah prays for his disciples in these words : — 
" Sanctify them through thy Truth : thy word is truth. " There 
is then no abstract sanctification, else there are two forms or 
characters of it : — one through the Truth, and one by the Spirit 
without the Truth. So of being born again. Hence James 
oracularly says, (chap. i. 18,) "Of his own will begat he us 
with the word of Truth;" and that, too, "that we should be 
first-fruits of his creatures." To the same effect Peter speaks, 
(1 Ep. chap. i. 23 :) — "Being born (or begotten) again, not 
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible , by the word of God, 
which lives and abides forever." While then the Spirit is 
the agent , the word of God is the instrument, in all cases, 
unless there be two distinct forms of generation and regene- 
ration. 

Next to the empty and deceitful philosophy on the subject 
of regeneration, wholly inoperative and ineffectual of good to 
saint or sinner, comes, from the same metaphysical cloisters, 
the absorbing theme of something called "Christian expe- 
rience." 

We never doubted nor denied Christian experience. But 
in this case as in the former, in our benevolent endeavors to 
correct the diction and the palpable errors everywhere canon- 
ized on this subject, we were obliged to take exception to the 
misappropriation of the term "Christian experience" to the 
states of mind occurring or existing antecedent to faith, re- 
pentance, and baptism. This was formerly almost universal 
in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee,-— indeed, in all the fields 
of my early labors among the Baptist brotherhood. 

On my first visit to the Dover Association, Virginia, ad. 
1828, I witnessed scenes of the wildest enthusiasm ever wit- 
nessed by me in any camp-meeting. There were "the mourn- 
ers," "the seekers for religion," "the screaming penitents," 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

" coming up to be prayed for," " relating their Christian expe- 
rience." Elder Carr, of Richmond, and Elder Jeremiah B. 
Jeter, were contributing their smiles and exhortations. And 
there too were Bishop Semple and Bishop Broaddus, &c. &c, 
all concurring in the scenes transpiring, so far as I could judge. 

The candidates for baptism in those days, when presenting 
themselves for baptism, occasionally related strange sights, 
marvelous scenes, irrepressible emotions, but they generally 
ended in " getting religion;" and such was the relation of their 
"Christian experience." The head and front of my offending 
consisted in remonstrating against this wild enthusiasm. "It 
had this extent, no more." It was, indeed, not peculiar to 
the Dover Association, nor to any other association in Virginia, 
Kentucky, or over the great West or South, to have from every 
candidate for baptism a relation of his feelings and emotions, 
on which a vote of approbation was taken to entitle him to 
Christian baptism. I have no recollection of ever hearing a 
single confession of Christian faith or of a belief of the gospel 
from any candidate among the Virginia Baptists in order to 
baptism. The candidate was baptized into his own experience, 
rather than into the Christian faith, as I understand it. 

In calling these customs into question, we, in their view, 
denied Christian experience ! All the appreciable difference 
indeed between the Virginia, Kentucky, Southwestern Bap- 
tists, and the adult Methodists or Congregationalists of those 
days, was, the former were immersed, the latter sprinkled, "in 
the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 1 ' 

True, they differed in ecclesiastic politics, tactics, and eco- 
nomics. But in no one grand, distinctive, characteristic doc- 
trine, or Christian practice, did they differ ; and in no special 
reverence or regard for the apostolic institutions. In these 
respects the Virginia and Kentucky Baptists in those days 
were greatly excelled by the Scotch and some of the English 
and Welsh Baptists, especially in their zeal for primitive Chris- 
tianity, and in their more profound piety and consecration to 
the Redeemer's cause and glory. 



X INTRODUCTION. 

While, then, we cannot approve the equivocal and tempo- 
rizing course adopted by Mr. Jeter on the subject of Christian 
experience before conversion, which he himself and his breth- 
ren formerly demanded or inquired for as a passport to 
baptism, we cannot but congratulate the denomination on the 
felicitous change which has already come over it in this and 
some other respects, — so that considerable numbers (as the 
report has reached us) are now being substantially baptized 
into the faith of the person, office, and character of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Alarmed at the prospects in his horizon, and 
eager to become a heroic " defender of the faith," Mr. Jeter, 
with characteristic zeal, has unsheathed his polemic sword, 
and, with clarion sounds, has in two consecutive volumes 
twice killed an appalling hydra of his own creation nicknamed 
"Cainpbellism." 

Not being an impartial judge in my own case, and being 
absorbed in matters of transcendent moment, we found a 
brother, comparatively young, — one of the graduates of Beth- 
any College, — into whose hands we have fearlessly confided this 
gigantic hero of world-wide fame, without one lingering doubt 
that he will render to him all due honor and fully satisfy Mr. 
Jeter that he has as much mistaken himself as he has his 
subject. 

If Mr. Jeter be not yet satisfied with the honors done him 
by our brother Lard, but is still covetous of a larger fame, we 
have other brethren on hand — even youths in progress — that* 
will, on the appearance of his third, or at most his seventh, 
exposition and interment of " Cainpbellism/' confer upon him 
the highest degree in the Roman calendar. 

Bethany, Va., 1857. 



REYIEW 



OP 



"CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED." 



CHAPTEE I. 

seasons foe the present work — biography — title of mr. 
jeter's book — sects, clergy, etc. 

SECTION I. 

Mr. Jeter's book has now been in the hands of the 
public for nearly two years. All have read it who felt 
the inclination to do so, and on its merits have passed 
their opinions. It has now, therefore, taken its place 
on the shelf, seldom, or never, perhaps, to descend from 
flhat quiet abode of intellectual labor, great and small, 
to be read a second time. It may not be amiss there- 
fore, now that it has wellnigh done its work, to cast 
over its pages a sober second view, with the intention 
of pronouncing upon its contents a more mature and 
dispassionate judgment. 

The views a examined" by Mr. Jeter are deemed by 
him not sound, hence utterly untenable, and fast be- 
coming obsolete. They have been published to the 
world in an age of great mental activity, and, to say 



10 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the least, have now been before the community in their 
present form for more than a quarter of a century. The 
men, the means, and the motives to examine these views 
thoroughly have been abundant. Have they been sub- 
jected to that examination? and if so, in what way? 

In the pulpit they have been incessantly assailed. 
Uneducated preachers, in their rude and earnest style, 
have pressed the attack with great violence. Learned 
divines, deep-read in the various forms of heresy and 
versed in the surest methods of detection and exposure, 
have laid the line ' and the plummet to them. The 
shrewd disputant has attacked them with whatever of 
skill practice can impart, and all the hoarded means 
which experience can collect. Even grave professors, 
with their subtle distinctions and rigorous logic, have 
tried them by all the laws analysis can supply and 
every rule induction can suggest. 

Nor have they fared better from the press. From 
transient paragraphs in daily sheets to the careful 
strictures of monthly periodicals; from trashy letters 
in weekly newspapers to the most elaborate essays of 
pamphleteers; from the coarsest attacks malevoleno* 
can direct to the most polished critiques which learning 
can produce, — in all these ways have they been sub- 
jected to examination. 

And yet, notwithstanding all this, and much besides ; 
notwithstanding these views are unsound, — utterly so ; 
notwithstanding they have wellnigh spent their force ; 
notwithstanding their hold on the mind of the pliant 
credulous public is daily becoming less firm ; notwith- 
standing the great and general distrust with which the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 11 

awakened world begins to view them ; in a word, not- 
withstanding " The Reformation" in Mr. Jeter's own 
language, "has proved a failure," there yet exists a 
necessity — an inexorable necessity — for a formal, me- 
thodical, and masterly exposition of these views. Surely 
this is not without its significance. We may affect 
contempt for a foe, may speak of his broken ranks and 
enfeebled warriors; but, while we marshal our own forces 
with so much tact, select our positions with so much 
caution, and consult with our subalterns with so much 
solicitude, it will be somewhat difficult to persuade a 
looker-on that no formidable enemy awaits our attack. 

But what reception has Mr. Jeter's book met with ? 
His brethren have received it well. Its summary of 
Baptist principles, though neither Ml nor strong, they 
accept as sound. Its defence of these principles they 
regard as satisfactory. Its style they pronounce good, 
its spirit excellent. And, as a refutation of the doc- 
trines it professes to review, they have, or at least per- 
suade themselves they have, a deep interest to consider 
it successful. 

♦ Nor can we doubt that it enjoys the favor of those 
denominations who have agreed, with as much pleasure 
and as little justice as Mr. Jeter, to pronounce us here- 
tics. Those denominations agree with him on the 
points touching which he dissents from us. The in- 
terests of both, therefore, being identical, their sym- 
pathies are mutual. Hence they consent to favor his 
book, because his book subserves their cause. Nor has 
he ever allowed himself for a moment to overlook this 
circumstance. He has, it is most evident, intentionally 



12 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

refrained from introducing into his book any matter, 
has studiously avoided every expression, which could 
have given the slightest offence to the parties whose 
favor he hoped to secure. And the gentlest note that 
warbles through his book is the oft-recurring te deum to 
orthodoxy. All of which has concurred to render the 
book acceptable, if not popular. 

But ought the book to be reviewed ? We believe it 
should, and for so believing assign, from among other 
reasons, the following : — 

1. The book as such does us as a people, but most of 
all our cause, great and gross injustice. This needs to 
be exposed. 

2. It has attained a respectable circulation, and hence 
the injustice done has been widely disseminated. This 
should be counteracted. 

3. It is highly due the cause we plead, or at least so 
much of it as is attacked in Mr. Jeter's book, that it 
should stand before the world, not in the garbled form 
in which it there appears, but, as far as this can be ac- 
complished in a limited review, in its own true and 
proper character, and resting on its own proper foun- 
dation. 

4. It is due ourselves as a people that we should not 
tamely submit to the odium to which it is the almost 
sole intention of this book to expose us. 

5. It is due the word of God that the scandalous per- 
versions of it with which the book abounds should be 
exposed. 

6. Justice to the cause of truth demands that the 
sophistry and unfairness with which Mr. Jeter attempts 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 13 

to sustain his own doctrines should not be allowed to 
pass unrebuked. 

We decide, therefore, to review his book, and, in so 
doing, hope to make its contents the occasion of achiev- 
ing good, — contents which, whether it was designed or 
not, have no tendency but to evil. 

In executing this task, we think it best to notice the 
topics to be treated of in the order, for the most part, 
in which they are met with in Mr. Jeter's book. What- 
ever lack of method, therefore, may be discovered in the 
present work, (and we shall admit it to be both great 
and obvious,) must be attributed to the very immethodi- 
cal manner in which he has arranged the materials of 
his own work. For, although he has affected a method, 
it is only a method of being affected. 

Of Mr. Jeter's book as a whole, we shall not, for the 
present, further intimate our appreciation than to say, 
its style is dull and haggled, its thoughts narrow, its 
arguments absolutely nil, its reflections trite and shal- 
low, its air vain and pretending, its spirit dissembled 
and mean. 

SECTION II. 

But Mr. Jeter's book has more objects than one in 
view. It is intended to contain an attack no less on Mr. 
Campbell himself than on his views. On what ground 
else can we account for the wretched biography of Mr. 
Campbell which it contains? There was no necessity 
for this. Mr. Campbell's private personal history is not 
the ground on which his published views must stand or 
fall. These are to be tried by quite a different rule 



14 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

But the case admits of a short solution. Mr. Jeter hates 
Mr. Campbell with an intense hatred. Hence, while 
professing to furnish a candid exposition of his errors, 
he could not resist the temptation to present a brief 
sketch of his life, that he might be afforded the oppor- 
tunity of giving expression, much as the fact is sought 
to be concealed, to this absorbing feeling of his heart. 

But he had, besides, an additional reason for this 
sketch. He feared to risk himself in a grapple with Mr. 
Campbell's views on their own merits; and he hence 
wished to enfeeble them by an effort to make it appear 
that they have emanated from a source not wholly un- 
attended by suspicious and vitiating circumstances. If 
Mr. Campbell's views have strength, reasoned he, their 
author, it may be, is not faultless \ hence they must be 
made to appear attainted by being connected with him. 
The sole design of this sketch is to present Mr. Campbell 
before the world in a doubtful and half-ridiculous light, 
and thus bring discredit on his views. "We leave the 
reader, however, to form his own estimate of an effort 
to blur a character from which, nevertheless, the 
author of that effort derives his sole distinction in the 
world. 

Had Mr. Jeter's book contained a manly examination 
of Mr. Campbell's real views, and not so many proofs of 
personal animosity, certainly it would have been less 
objectionable than it is. A strong, dignified analysis 
and examination of these, with no indications of per- 
sonal ill-will, would have been received, however much 
we might have differed from him in his judgments, in a 
spirit of genuine kindness. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 15 

He could not even salaet a title for his book without 
furnishing a verification of what has just been alleged. 
"Campbellism" was the only term which could vent the 
feelings of his heart. And yet he knew no term to be 
more offensive to us as a people. And he should have 
known that it is an act of high discourtesy to attempt 
to designate the views of any body of believers by terms 
which they hold to be unjust, and which they have re- 
peatedly avowed do not express them. And no man, 
we must add, but a boor in feelings, whatever may be 
his factitious position in society, will stoop to the deed. 
The views associated in the public mind with the term 
"Campbellism" are not the views entertained by Mr. 
Campbell and his brethren. They are such as our ene- 
mies represent us as holding, and not such as we our- 
selves believe in. Of this fact we believe Mr. Jeter to 
be not ignorant. On what principle, then, except on 
that of a willingness to become a trafficker in misrepre- 
sentations and opprobrious epithets, could he consent to 
employ the term ? He knew the term to be one of re- 
proach, and hence felt himself called on to offer an ex- 
planation for using it ; and yet he knew it became not a 
w T hit the less a term of reproach for all that. If a man 
consent to deal in slander, it is far from being a sufficient 
apology for his offence to say he does not mean his 
slander to be slanderous. No apology can justify the 
application of this discourteous epithet to our views. 
But the author's scanty vocabulary, it would seem, is to 
be blamed for the use of the term. It could afford 
him no descriptive epithet for a cause the merits of 
which he proposes gravely and decently to argue ; and 



16 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

he is hence driven to the use of a term familiar to none 
but the charlatan, save Mr. Jeter. 



SECTION III. 

Of much that is said in Mr. Jeter's book we purpose 
taking no notice whatever. Especially is this remark 
intended to apply to the first part of the book, in which 
so little is said that is worth reading, and so much less 
that is worth reviewing. Accordingly, under the cap- 
tion "Campbellism in its inception" occur but two pas- 
sages to which we shall invite the attention of the 
reader. These we notice, because they acquaint us at 
the outset with that depth of penetration which we 
shall so frequently have occasion to admire in the 
volume befbre us. 

" It cannot be questioned/' remarks Mr. Jeter, " that 
circumstances exert a mighty influence in forming the 
tastes, opinions, and characters, and guiding the lives, 
of most men;" and then on the next page adds, "Had 
Mr. Campbell not passed his early years in Scotland, 
his religious views and career would have differed 
widely from what they have been/' 

jSTow, that Mr. Campbell's views might have differed 
from what they are at present is certainly not impos- 
sible; but that they would have differed is what Mr. 
Jeter does not know, though he scruples not to assert 
it. 'But, conceding the truth of his hypothesis, what 
then? Does it follow that Mr. Campbell's present 
views are wrong? What his views might have been, 
had the scene of his early life been different, has no- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 17 

thing whatever to do with the truth of his present 
views. Their truth rests on quite a different founda- 
tion. And yet Mr. Jeter's position, if it amounts to 
any thing, amounts to this : — that Mr. Campbell's views, 
because formed not in America but in Scotland, are 
wrong; and of course, by the same conclusive rea- 
soning, that Mr. Jeter's views, because formed not in 
Scotland but in America, are right ! We admire his 
complacent logic ! 

Mr. Jeter's classic education has not only had a fine . 
effect on his fancy, but it has enriched his speech with 
the most choice selection of terms which language can 
afford. . a Campbellism," mutable and transient as a 
dream, dances through. his imagination in forms styled, 
with exquisite taste, "inception" "chaos," and forma- 
Hon" There are many reasons why these terms should 
have been chosen ; some which even a child can under- 
stand. Their number is three; their syllables, eight; 
their letters, a score and three. One is a dissyllable, 
the other two are not; tw x o are trisyllables, the other 
one is not. They can be counted, spelled, and accented. 
They can be written, printed, and transposed. They 
can be sung in poetry, read in prose, and delivered in 
declamation. And, no doubt, many other like curious 
and weighty reasons for their selection would occur to 
a person of Mr. Jeter's penetration; but these are 
enough, surely, to satisfy even the dullest that the 
terms have been wdsely chosen. 

Mr. Jeter styles his second chapter "Campbellism in 
its chaos;" and the striking resemblance between its 
contents and the meaning of a term in the heading 



18 REVIEW OE CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

occurs to us as one of the happiest coincidences in his 
book. In the second paragraph of this chapter, he 
says, "It would have puzzled the most careful, dis- 
criminating, and candid reader of the 6 Christian Bap- 
tist' to form any clear conception of Mr. Campbell's 
principles or aims." 

But few persons, we suspect, acquainted with Mr, 
Campbell's writings, will be prepared to admit the cor- 
rectness of this statement. From the writings of no 
author with whom we happen to be acquainted is it 
easier to collect his principles and aims, than from the 
writings of Mr. Campbell. His learning, accurate dis- 
crimination, and fertile speech, enable him to express 
himself with a clearness and precision equaled by few, 
excelled perhaps by none. Simple justice to the cha- 
racter of a great man demands that at least this much 
shall be said in defence of a style of writing singularly 
strong and free from doubt. 



SECTION IV. 

On the twenty-fifth page of Mr. Jeter's book, he 
says, "Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being 
a reformer" And the emphasis laid on the word 
"reformer" hints, not very remotely, at the truest 
pledge this clergyman can give of his amiable nature, 
— a sneer. But was it, indeed, under the circumstances, 
a thing to be sneered at, to aspire to the distinction ? 
We shall see. 

"That a reformation was needed by the Christian 
Beets of that time," says Mr. Jeter, "none, who pos- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 19 

sess a tolerable acquaintance with their condition and 
the claims of the gospel, will deny. Indeed, what 
church, or member of a church, does not, in some 
respects and in some degree, need reformation ? There 
was needed then, as at all times, an increase of reli- 
gious knowledge in the churches; but, more than this, 
an increase of piety. The reformation demanded by 
the times was in spirit and practice rather than doc- 
trine. They were then, as now, far too worldly, for- 
mal, and inefficient. Among the Baptist churches there 
were some sad evils. In parts of the country, the 
churches were infected with an antinomian spirit, and 
blighted by a heartless, speculative, hair-splitting ortho- 
doxy. These churches were mostly penurious, opposed 
to Christian missions and all enlarged plans and self- 
denying efforts for promoting the cause of Christ. In 
general, the careful study of the Scriptures, the reli- 
gious education of children, the proper observance of 
the Lord's day, a wholesome, scriptural discipline, the 
reasonable support of pastors, and, in fine, devotion to 
the Kedeemer's cause, were too much neglected/' 

Well may Mr. Jeter, after this, admit that a "reforma- 
tion" was needed by the "Christian sects" of that time; 
and yet he does not blush to sneer at the man who 
" aspired to the honor" of effecting it. As to whether 
the reformation demanded was a reformation u in spirit 
and practice rather than doctrine," we shall leave those 
best acquainted with the wretched state of doctrine at 
the time to decide. 

But Mr. Campbell never proposed a reformation of 
"Christian sects" as such. He proposed that all sincere 



20 REVIEW OF GAMPBELJLI83I EXAMINE 

and pious Christians should abandon these " sects/' 
and ; uniting upon the great foundation upon which, 
as upon a rock, Christ said he would build his church, 
form themselves into a church of Christ, and not into a 
"sect." A " Christian sect" we pronounce simply an 
impossible thing. Sects there may be, innumerable; 
but Christian, as sects, they can never be. A church 
of Christ is not a sect, in any legitimate sense of the 
term. As soon as a body of believers, claiming to be a 
church of Christ, becomes a sect, it ceases to be a 
church of Christ. Sect and Christian are terms de- 
noting incompatible ideas. Christians there may be in 
all the " sects," as we believe there are ; but, in them 
though they may be, yet of them, if Christians, clearly 
they are not. Mr. Campbell's proposition never looked 
to the reformation of sects as such. A sect reformed 
would still be a sect; and sect and Christian are not 
convertible terms. Sectarianism originates, and neces- 
sarily, in the church, but has its consummation out of 
it. Hence Paul, in addressing the church at Corinth, 
says, " There must be also heresies (sectarianism) among 
you, that they who are approved may be made mani- 
fest." But here is something which seems never to 
have struck the mind of Mr. Jeter. With the apostle, 
sectarianism originated with the bad, and the good 
were excluded ; but with Mr. Jeter it includes the good, 
and the bad are excluded. How shall we account for 
the difference? As soon, however, as the ^heretic" 
(the sectarian) is discovered in the church, he is, by the 
. apostle's direction, to be admonished a first and second 
time, and then, if he repent not, to be rejected. Now, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 21 

we request to be informed by Mr. Jeter how, according 
to this rule, a "Christian sect" can exclude her "secta- 
rians" and still remain a "sect"? Heresy and secta- 
rianism are identical, being both represented by the 
same term in the same sense in the original ; and that 
which they represent has its origin in the flesh. Hence 
the same apostle, in enumerating the works of the flesh, 
mentions, among other things, strife, sedition, heresy, 
{sectarianism.) Heresy or sectarianism, we are taught 
by the Apostle Peter, is introduced into the church by 
"false teachers" and is " damnable ;" and yet Mr. Jeter, 
with true foster-father tenderness, can talk of " Chris- 
tian sects." 

SECTION V. 

Another peculiarity of "Campbellism in its chaos" 
was, it seems, a most virulent attack on the " kingdom 
of clergy." Mr. Jeter's defence is eminently charac- 
teristic, being affectionate, feeble, and short. There 
is something mournful and sad in its melancholy air. 
Nor can we wonder at the circumstance. Few men 
were ever more feared or more hated by the clergy 
than Mr. Campbell; and few men were ever more 
clerical than Mr. Jeter. Young, shallow, and bigoted, 
the Attic wit and racy humor of the " Christian Bap- 
tist" caused him excruciating pain. He learned to sigh 
in time long gone, and with increasing age and decreas- 
ing strength his sigh has grown to a dirge. Our sym- 
pathies are moved for the man. And in the length and 
painful nature of some of his labors there is much to 
move even a harder heart than ours. Gazing fo^- thirty 



22 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISxM EXAMINED. 

years intently into the " Third Epistle of Peter/' where 
his port and bearing and all the secret springs and mo- 
tions of his heart lie mirrored in lines so just and true, 
is an object to move the pity even of a wretch. 

But was there no just ground for the attack on the 
clergy ? We shall let the following picture, drawn by 
Mr. Jeter himself, of the truth of which he, we pre- 
sume, is the best judge, answer the question. "They 
(the clergy) were by no means faultless," he observes. 
"Some of them were ignorant, conceited, and vain; 
others were proud, haughty, and imperious; others, 
still, were hypocritical, mercenary, and base ; and not 
a few were worldly, selfish, and sycophantic." .After 
this, it would be an idle waste of time to defend Mr. 
Campbell's attack on the reverend gentlemen here so 
happily and savagely described. 

While admitting that Mr. Campbell attacked the 
clergy, and at times, too, severely, we -still insist that 
his attack was just and discriminating. To that class 
of them described in the preceding extract he was, we 
grant, not over-indulgent; nor in this will he be ad- 
judged to have erred. But there were many among 
them whom, while he believed them to be in error, he 
regarded as men of great intellectual and moral worth : 
men whom he loved sincerely, and against whom he 
never let fall a shaft but to correct some waywardness 
in doctrine, and then always in a spirit of real kindness. 
True, their treatment of him was such as generally 
entitled them not even to his respect, much less to his 
esteem; and yet they shared largely of both. When 
Mr. Jeter acquaints himself with the lying, bitter, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 23 

Smithfield spirit with which his clerical brethren of 
that day set on Mr. Campbell, he will find his stock 
of charity exhausted, and his time consumed, in pro- 
viding mantles to cover their shame, and many a 
reason to shrink from a comparison of their conduct 
with that of Mr. Campbell. 



SECTION VI. 

But " Canrpbellism in its chaos" was distinguished by 
another attack of a nature still more offensive, if possi- 
ble, than the attack on the clergy. Mr. Campbell ven- 
tured to question the authority and doctrinal soundness 
of Creeds or Confessions of Faith. We admit he did, and 
maintain he was right. First, he proposed to examine 
creeds historically, for the purpose of ascertaining 
whence they had sprung, and what their effects on the 
church had been. Second, to inquire into their doctrines 
in order to determine their intrinsic value. Third, to 
investigate the authority with which they are invested. 

On examining into the history of creeds, he felt it to 
be fully established that they did not originate with 
Christianity, neither with the primitive churches; and 
that they are hence without the sanction either of Christ 
or the apostles. On the contrary, he ascertained that 
they originated in an age when Christianity is admitted 
by all to have been greatly corrupted, and that they 
grew out of these corruptions and embody them, with a 
slight admixture of truth. And, as to. their effects upon 
the church, he ascertained that these had been to ex- 
clude from the church in the days of her corruption, not 



24 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the corrupting party always, but the feebler one, and 
that too without the least regard to the soundness of its 
views. 

On inquiring into the doctrines of creeds, it was felt 
that so far as they embody the doctrines of a party as 
such, whether a majority or not, they embody not 
strictly the doctrines of Christianity, but merely the 
party's opinions, speculations, and metaphysics; that 
they are intended not so much to define matters on 
which parties agree, as to guard points on which they 
differ; and that hence their legitimate tendency is, if 
not to create, at least to perpetuate, divisions. 

And, in regard to the authority of creeds, it appeared 
that they are intended to be authoritative codes of laws 
by which the parties respectively adopting them cove- 
nant to be governed both in their doctrine and in their 
discipline; that parties decide their questions of heresy, 
not by the Bible, but by the creed; that a person dis- 
senting from the creed is pronounced a heretic, though 
he declare his belief in the whole Bible in the fair con- 
struction of its terms; and finally, that the forms of 
church policy and rules of discipline contained in creeds, 
though always binding and frequently tyrannical, are 
without the semblance of authority from the Holy Scrip- 
tures. For these and other weighty reasons, Mr. Camp- 
bell felt it to be due the Savior to repudiate creeds 
altogether. 

In regard to the propriety of having a creed, and the 
kind they should have, if any, Mr. Campbell and his 
brethren reasoned thus : — If a creed contains lees than 
the Bible then it contains too little, but if it contains 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. 25 

more then it contains too much; and if it contains any 
thing different from the Bible it is wrong, but if it con- 
tains precisely what the Bible contains then it is not a 
creed but a Bible.* And if ; they reasoned further, our 
views of the Bible are correct, there is no necessity for 
publishing them to the world in the form of a creed. 
As they are already more accurately expressed in the 
Bible than we can possibly express them, we will merely 
publish the Bible. But if they are not correct, then 
they should not be published in any form, for the Bible 
does not sanction the publication of what is wrong. 

But even Mr. Campbell, it seems, has a creed. The 
following is Mr. Jeter's language: — " There is in Chris- 
tendom a great variety of creeds, from the so-called Apos- 
tles' Creed down to the 'Christian System' composed by 
Mr. Campbell as an exhibition of the principles of the 
Beformation." But whether Mr. Campbell's brethren 
have a creed or not does not appear from Mr. Jeter's 
book. It is presumed, however, from the following lan- 
guage, that they have none: — " Every intelligent Chris- 
tian," he remarks, "has a creed, written or unwritten." 
Blockheads, then, of course have none ! This* is certainly 
the reason why the Baptists have creeds, and likely the 
reason we have none ! 

When Mr. Jeter penned the assertion that the "Chris- 
tian System" is a creed, he must have supposed his read- 
ers would be of a class too corrupt to receive it if true; 

* I am indebted for this fine argument to my sincere friend and brother, 
Alexander Proctor, now of St. Louis, whose accurate learning, good sense, 
and talents, point him out as destined to be eminently useful to the cause 
of primitive Christianity. 



26 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

otherwise it is difficult to account for its presence in 
his book. It is an assertion which we have never met 
with except in the lowest class of attacks that have 
been made on Mr. Campbell's views. When we chance 
with a scurrilous little pamphlet, either denuded or 
garbed in green or blue, clandestinely circulating over 
the country against these views, among the first things 
we expect to meet with on opening it is the assertion 
that Alexander Campbell has a creed; but certainly we 
had no right to expect it in the decent work of a pious 
clergyman. 

The term "creed," in its current as well as in its eccle- 
siastic sense, denotes a Confession of Faith. In this sense 
and in this only does Mr. Campbell use the term when 
objecting to creeds. Of this fact Mr. Jeter cannot be 
ignorant. Why then does he apply the term to the 
"Christian System"? Does he mean to insinuate that 
the "Christian System" is a creed in this sense? We 
shall only add that if a good cause requires its advocates 
to resort to expedients like this, then the opprobrium 
of trickery should cease. 



SECTION VII. 

In the course of his comments on the attack on creeds, 
Mr. Jeter undertakes to point out what he styles a 
"great fallacy ," which, it would seem, "lurks in our 
boasted purity of speech." As this "fallacy has never, 
that we know of, occurred as yet to any of our breth- 
ren, we beg leave here to call their attention to it. The 
following is Mr, Jeter's language :—" They" (Mr. Camp- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 27 

bell and his brethren) "do, it is true, insist that their 
members shall speak of Bible things in Bible terms. 
To restore a pure or scriptural speech is one of the main 
objects of the Eeformation for which Mr. Campbell 
pleads. But in their boasted purity of speech there 
lurks another great fallacy. They do not use Bible terms. 
The Bible, with a few slight exceptions, was written in 
the Hebrew and Greek tongues; and they derive their 
theological terms from a translation of the Bible made by 
fallible men." 

Terms, then, derived from a translation of the Bible 
are not Bible terms. From this seedy premise the follow- 
ing conclusions result : — 

1. That a translation of the Bible is not a Bible. For, 
if the single terms of a translation of the Bible are not 
Bible terms, neither are they collectively. Hence they 
cannot form a Bible. 

2. That Mr. Jeter has not produced, in his entire book, 
even one Bible argument against any view of Mr. Camp- 
bell; for he has used only a translation of the Bible. 

3. That he has not produced a particle of Bible evi- 
dence in defence of his own doctrines; since the evidence 
he has produced is all cited from a translation of the 
Bible. 

4. That, for aught the world can learn from his book, 
Mr. Campbell's views constitute the only true and proper 
exposition of Christianity now extant. 

This only proves that he who has resolved that he 
will never be just has, in the act, resolved that he will 
be at times extremely foolish. 



28 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

SECTION VIII. 

Another blunder, of a kind which Mr. Jeter is no less 
capable of committing than the preceding,, occurs on 
p. 40 of his book, in some strictures he offers on a 
" discourse" he had somewhere heard Mr. Campbell de- 
liver, which, it seems, was " eloquent, plausible, and 
sophistical." The subject of the discourse, it appears, 
was the unity of the church of Christ. Mr. Campbell 
assumed upon the authority of the Bible that there is 
"one body." He then argued that, since the "one body" 
is the churchy the church is hence a unit. But it was 
not in this that the " sophism" consisted, in pointing 
out which Mr. Jeter commits his blunder. 

The term u church" is employed in the Bible in two dif- 
ferent senses, — one a more, the other a less, comprehen- 
sive sense. When used in the former sense, it compre- 
hends the whole body of Christians since the commence- 
ment of Christ's reign to the present. But, in the latter, 
it applies only to a particular congregation composed of 
a limited number of these Christians meeting at some 
stated place for worship. Now, the " sophism" consisted 
in this : — Mr. Campbell left his audience to infer that he 
and his brethren exhaust the meaning of the term in its 
largest sense, i.e. that they alone constitute the body of 
Christ. The following is Mr. Jeter's language: — "He" 
(Mr. Campbell) "did not inform us, however, what body 
is the body of Christ. He trusted in the intelligence and 
candor of his hearers to infer that the body of Christ 
is the body that embraces the ? ancient gospel/ and that 
has restored the 'ancient order of things.' " 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 29 

Now, we shall attempt no formal reply to this. We 
shall simply deny that it is in the memory of man that 
Mr. Campbell ever offered the gross insult to his under- 
standing that is here attributed to him. 

That he may have denied that the Methodist church, 
or the Presbyterian church, or even the Baptist church, 
as such, constitutes the church of Christ, either in whole 
or in part, is what we are ready to believe. The term 
"church," as already stated, has two, and but two, accep- 
tations in the Bible. In the one, it includes the whole 
family of the elect since Christ to the present time. In 
this acceptation it is equivalent to the expression "king- 
dom of God" in the passage, "Except a man be born 
again he cannot see the kingdom of God." In the 
other, it denotes a particular congregation, composed of 
those who have entered this kingdom, meeting at some 
stated place for worship, as the church at Sardis. But 
in neither acceptation will the term apply to any one 
nor even to all the denominations just named. They 
are neither collectively the church in the one sense, nor 
singly a church in the other; nor as denominations are they 
even part of the church of Christ in any sense. Indeed, 
whether we view them at large as denominations or con- 
sider their individual congregations, one thing is certain, 
they are neither in the one capacity nor the other known 
in the Bible, nor recognised by it, as belonging to the 
church of Christ. A Baptist church of Christ is as unreal 
a thing as a Eoman Catholic church of Christ, and there is 
as much authority in the Bible for the one as for the other. 
By this remark we do not mean to compare Baptists as 
individuals with Eoman Catholics. Very far from it. 
3* 



80 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

We speak of the denomination only, and of this so far 
only as it is Baptist; but we do mean that thus far it 
has no more sanction from the Bible than the Eoman 
Catholic church. 

If the term Baptist denotes not something essential to 
a Christian as a Christian, neither something essential 
to a church of Christ as such, then it denotes something 
which is not Christian. It then denotes an attribute, as far 
as it denotes any, not of a church as a church of Christ, 
but of a church as distinguished from a church of Christ, 
and hence something not sanctioned by the Bible. In 
which case, both what the term denotes and the term 
itself should be rebated as essential neither to a Chris- 
tian nor to a church of Christ. 

But perhaps Mr. Jeter will say the expression "Bap- 
tist church of Christ' ' means no more than the expres- 
sion " church of Christ." But how can this be ? The 
expression "church of Christ" is certainly equal to 
itself. And if so, then of course the prefix "Baptist" 
means nothing, and hence should be abandoned. But, 
if the expression "Baptist church of Christ" means 
either more or less, or any thing else, than the expres- 
sion " church of Christ," then the expression " church 
of Christ" means one thing, and the expression "Bap- 
tist church of Christ" another thing. And hence it 
would follow, since the Bible sanctions only a church of 
Christ, that it does not sanction a Baptist church of 
Christ. 

Indeed, as already stated, the term "Baptist," whe- 
ther applied to the individual or the church, denotes 
something belonging to neither as Christian, and, there- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 81 

fore, should be disused. But, should it be alleged that it 
denotes merely the difference between one Christian and 
another, or between one church and another, then we 
reply that no such difference is sanctioned by the Bible, 
and hence we are under no obligation to provide a name 
for it. On the contrary, we are under obligation to seek 
to cancel all such differences, as well as all terms de- 
noting them. Now, these differences, whether -between 
one individual Christian and another, or between one 
church and another, and all terms denoting them, are 
precisely what Mr. Campbell and his brethren propose 
shall be abolished. They propose that nothing not 
essential, according to the Bible, to the character of a 
Christian, shall be made a bond of union or a condi- 
tion of fellowship, either among individual Christians 
or churches of Christ. It is thus that they propose to 
abolish all sects and sectarianism. 

But Mr. Campbell does not claim for himself and his 
brethren that they, as a body, exhaust the meaning of 
the term the church, nor that they are the only persons 
who are members of the church. Hence, no apology can 
be pleaded for Mr. Jeter's dishonorable insinuation to 
the contrary. Mr. Campbell concedes to all, no matter 
where found, who have been, in the true acceptation of 
the phrase, "born again" that they are members of the 
church or body of Christ. True, he believes many of 
these members to be in organizations purely sectarian, 
and hence unsanctioned by the Bible. And to all such 
members his counsel is, Come out of these organiza- 
tions. 

But Mr. Campbell does maintain that his brethren, as 



32 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

a denomination, are Christian ; and that hence, so far as 
the body of Christ has on earth a denominational exist- 
ence, they are that body. And this is what he denies 
to any other and to all denominations in Christendom 
besides. This is the great distinction which he believes 
to exist between his brethren, as a body, and all other 
bodies. 

Again, he denies that the individual congregations of 
his brethren, such as are of good moral character, can, 
except in the language of envy, ignorance, or fable, be 
denominated sectarian. On the contrary, he insists that 
each one of them is, according to the Bible, in the 
strictest sense of the term, a church of Christ; and that, 
consequently, so far as the church can be held to have 
a congregational existence, they exhaust its present 
meaning. 

Both such congregations, and the denomination itself 
as a body, are composed of members who repudiate 
every thing not essentially involved in the Bible view 
of a Christian ; and who maintain the absolute necessity 
and importance of all that is. As a body and as congre- 
gations they refuse to be bound or governed by any code 
of laws except the New Testament, or to acknowledge 
any other names except the names which it imposes. 
How, then, can either be called sectarian ? Mr. Jeter is 
no more at liberty to apply the term to either than he 
would be to apply it to the church of God which met at 
Corinth. "We do not say he will not do it : indeed, we 
know he does; nor have we ground to expect aught 
better from him. It is a peculiarity of the guilty that 
they always seek to cover their own crimes by im- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 33 

puting the same to others. He will certainly call us 
sectarians. 

SECTION IX. 

But the sorest and most offensive feature of " Camp- 
bellism in its chaos" yet remains to be stated. Mr. 
Campbell ventured to attack the practice of relating a 
" Christian experience." This, together with his " early 
writings on the subject of experimental religion, gave 
great pain to the friends of spiritual Christianity." So 
writes Mr. Jeter. True, Mr. Campbell ventured to attack 
the practice in question, but on what grounds? Has 
Mr. Jeter stated them ? He has not. Policy dictated 
to him that what he could not answer it would be better 
to suppress. Indeed, after what he has written on the 
subject, there was little necessity to state them; for if 
we are to believe the subject to be part of Christianity, 
and to accept his picture of it as true, to deem him its 
friend and Mr. Campbell its enemy, then truly may it 
be said that it is, not from its enemies, but from its 
friends, that Christianity suffers its chief disgrace. Let 
any one read Mr. Jeter's own account of " Christian 
experience," bearing in mind that he is defending it 
against its most powerful adversary, that he knew 
when writing his defence that most likely it would 
have to pass the ordeal of a review by Mr. Campbell ; 
let him then note the things which could not be sup- 
pressed and imagine those that are, and he can hardly 
fail to conclude that, if a Christian experience" is a part 
of Christianity, then the line which separates the true 
from the fabulous has never been accurately determined. 



34 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 

We here use the phrase "Christian experience" in the 
only sense in which it is popularly understood. 

Mr. Campbell attacked the practice in question for the 
following reasons : — 1. It is not sanctioned by the Bible. 
2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. 3. The 
practice fosters superstition. Upon each of these rea- 
sons it may not be amiss to dwell for a moment. 

1. The practice is not sanctioned by the Bible. This, 
to a man scrupulously exact in matters of the highest 
moment, and who cherished a deep reverence for the 
word of God, would be enough. His conscience would in- 
stantly spurn the practice. He could no longer consent 
to impeach the Divine wisdom by affirming that to be 
necessary upon which that wisdom has seen fit to be 
silent. He could not consent to cumber the hearts of 
his brethren with a sense of duty where the Master has 
left them free. He could never be induced to set aside 
the word of God to make room for a mere tradition. 
And yet all this would give great pain and cause great 
scandal to the friends of spiritual Christianity! 

2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. This 
point is the sense of forgiveness alleged to be felt by the 
party at the moment when his sins are supposed to be 
remitted. In his account of the elements of a " Chris- 
tian experience," Mr. Jeter thought it wise to suppress 
this. The meaning of- the expression " sense of forgive- 
ness" is concisely this : — that at the instant of regenera- 
tion the sinner is sensibly assured that his sins are 
remitted. But this is something which the Bible does 
not affirm. Feelings may exist, but they prove not re- 
mission; impressions may be made, but they teach not 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 35 

forgiveness. In most instances we may hope the un- 
fortunate victim of this delusion to be sincere. But 
this alters not the nature of the case. Whether he 
feigns the existence of feelings that have no existence, 
(which, we fear, is not seldom the case,) or adopts the 
fictitious construction of others of feelings that do exist, 
(which is perhaps more frequently the case,) the result 
is the same : — the point assumed to be the evidence of 
remission is a fiction. No good man of strong mind, 
and unwilling to be deceived, ever yet heard related 
what is popularly called a " Christian experience" with- 
out feeling himself deeply moved when that part of the 
farce was approached which was to elicit a declaration 
of the sense of forgivenes.8. It is difficult to say which is 
the greater, — the pity of such a man for the deluded 
creature who sits before him on the inquisitorial bench 
to be plied with every silly question which ignorance or 
impudence can put, or his disgust for the blind guide 
who conducts the process of torturing the feelings of a 
subdued and weeping sinner into every imaginable form 
that is false. 

8. The practice fosters superstition. Of the truth of 
this there is no more unmistakable evidence than the 
chary concessions of Mr. Jeter. That dreams, visions, 
sounds, voices, and spectres, were formerly, as they are 
still, common elements in the experiences related, does 
not admit of being denied. These things were related 
in public in the presence of large audiences. Many 
hearing them believed them real. Hence, in " seeking 
religion" these persons were naturally led to look for 
the same marvelous things which others had seen. 



86 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

"With their superstitious feelings thus highly excited, 
how easy for theni to persuade themselves that they 
had seen or heard what had either no foundation at all, 
or none beyond their fancy ! Hence, if the father had 
heard a sound, nothing but a sound would satisfy the 
son ; if the mother had dreamed a dream, the daughter 
was a dreamer too ; and thus the weaknesses of parents 
became the weaknesses of their children, and the super- 
stition of one generation the superstition of the next. 

Of these evils Mr. Jeter is content to say, "They were 
seen, deplored, and opposed by all well-informed Chris- 
tians long before he" (Mr. Campbell) " commenced his 
reformation." Not without many a qualification can 
this be accepted as true. One thing is certain :— that 
where these " well-informed" Christians are still in the 
ascendant, no perceptible diminution of the evil has as 
yet occurred. 

But we must not dismiss the subject without noticing 
Mr. Jeter's attempt to prostitute the Bible to its sup- 
port. "Philip," he says, "did not baptize the Ethiopian 
eunuch, who requested baptism, until he had catechized 
him. True," he continues, "the evangelist propounded 
but one question to the candidate; or, at least, in the 
concise narrative furnished by Luke, only one is re- 
corded, — that, under the circumstances, being deemed 
sufficient." 

Well, from Philip's propounding one question what 
does Mr. Jeter infer? His modest conclusion is thus 
stated : — " This example, so far from restricting pastors 
or churches to this brief and single question, — a ques- 
tion never, so far as we are informed, proposed to any 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 37 

other applicant for the ordinance, in apostolic times, — 
fairly authorizes them to make such inquiries as the in- 
telligence, known characters, and circumstances of the 
candidates may appear to require." That is, one ques- 
tion put by an inspired teacher authorizes uninspired 
"pastors or churches" to put, if they see fit, a thousand, 
or to require a "candidate" for baptism to relate a 
Christian experience. 

When the holy word of God can be thus scandalously 
perverted by its professed friends merely to serve a 
purpose, for consistency's sake let the clamor of Chris- 
tians against infidel injustice be hushed forever. 

But, gentle reader, will you turn to the eighth chap- 
ter of the Acts, and read from the twenty-ninth verse 
to the close of the chapter ? You will observe that, on 
approaching the eunuch, Philip says to him, "Under- 
standest thou what thou readest l" But this is not the 
"one question" to which Mr. Jeter refers; therefore read 
on. You are through. Now say whether you have 
found even one question put by Philip to the eunuch 
before he would baptize him. No. Such a question is 
not in the passage. Philip states the condition on which 
the eunuch might be baptized, but he propounds to him 
no question. But Mr. Jeter, in his blind zeal to find an 
example which would justify him in catechizing candi- 
dates for baptism , confounds a condition with a question; 
or, if he has not done this, then he is guilty of invent- 
ing for the Bible what it does not contain. 



38 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



SECTION X. 

But Mr. Jeter is in labor to make it appear that 
Mr. Campbell and his brethren are a "sect." As we 
have already alluded to this subject, but little more 
need be added on it here. His language is, "Mr. 
Campbell now found himself at the head of a sect, — 
yes, of a sect The reformers were a sect, according 
to the definition of Noah "Webster : — ' Sect : A body or 
number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philoso- 
phy and religion, but constituting a distinct party by 
holding sentiments different from those of other men ; 
a denomination/ " 

According, then, to Mr. Jeter and Mr. Webster, we 
are a " sect." Now, we shall certainly not attempt to 
deny that there is a sense in which certain men can call 
us a " sect." Had we lived in the days of the Phari- 
sees, we doubt not they would have called us a " sect." 
Should we wonder at their doing it now ? But it is not 
Mr. Webster who styles us a sect, but Mr. Jeter, who 
applies his language to us. Our defence is this : — after 
the way which some men call heresy, so worship we the 
God of our fathers, believing all things which are writ- 
ten in the law and in the prophets. 

But let us put the logic of Mr. Jeter to the proof. 
The following is Mr. Webster's definition of baptism : — 
"The application of water to a person, as a sacrament or 
religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the 
visible church of Christ. This is usually performed by 
sprinkling or immersion." Mr. Jeter, your witness is 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 89 

an honorable man. Is the case made out ? If he tes- 
tify truly against your adversary, pray, sir, what is the 
effect of his testimony against yourself? 

But, again, says Mr. Jeter, " It must be added that 
the reformers were a sect in the sense in which Mr. 
Campbell so frequently employed the term. They had 
all the attributes, and, eminently the spirit, of a sect. 
Their claim to be considered the church, and, by emi- 
nence, the Christian church, was as baseless, and far 
more preposterous, than the same claim vauntingly set 
forth by some older and more venerable if not more 
worthy sects." 

We understand Mr. Jeter perfectly, and shall give his 
paltry insinuation the benefit of a second publication. 
His meaning is this : — that our claim to be considered 
the church, and, by eminence, the Christian church, — a 
claim which has now been explained, — is as baseless as, 
and far more preposterous than, the same claim vaunt- 
ingly set forth by the church of Borne, which is, with 
him, a more venerable if not more worthy sect than we. 
Within itself this insinuation is of no consequence 
whatever. Its sole value consists in this :— that it is 
the truest index to its author's feelings we have yet 
seen. Sectarianism, as defined by him, consists, among 
other things, to use his own language, in " the lack of 
tenderness and forbearance toward those who dissent 
from our views." Tried by his own rule, in the light 
of the foregoing insinuation, and how free from the 
stain of sectarianism is Mr. Jeter ? 



4U REVIEW OE C'AMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



CHAPTEE II. 

MB. JETER'S DOCTRINE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT IN 
CONVERSION EXAMINED. 

SECTION I. 

Passing over all else Mr. Jeter has to say on " Camp- 
bellism" in the first one hundred and thirteen pages 
of his book, as of no consequence whatever, we shall 
now proceed to examine what he has to say on the 
principles of the system. We indulge the hope that 
we are now entering upon a more pleasing as well as 
more profitable task. Our interest, consequently, in 
our future labor is much enhanced. The strength of 
our cause is now to be tried. Its principles are to be 
analyzed and their soundness thoroughly tested. Our 
only regret is that a greater master than Mr. Jeter is 
not to conduct the process. 

How long it took to elaborate these principles, or the 
precise period -when they were digested into a system, 
are points upon which Mr. Jeter has not seen fit to en- 
lighten us. Prom what he says, however, we may infer 
that they were in course of development for a long 
time, passing through various transitions from their in- 
ception in the fertile brain of Mr. Campbell up to the 
period of full formation. However, at last they as- 
sumed, it seems, the form of a system. Into this sys- 
tem Mi*. Jeter boldly dips, and on its capital items 



REVIEW OF CAMFBELLISM EXAMINED. 41 

dwells at length, among the chief of which is the in- 
fluence of the Spirit in conversion. 

On this subject Mr. Jeter states his doctrine thus : — 
"There is an influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and 
efficacious, differing from moral suasion, but ordinarily 
exerted through the inspired word, in the conversion of 
sinners." 

Of this proposition, and of the doctrine it enunciates, 
we have, before proceeding to notice the defence of it, 
several things to say. 

The proposition contains three superfluous terms, to 
wit : internal, mighty, and efficacious. No one contends 
for an influence of the Spirit which is merely external, 
neither for one which has no might, nor yet for ono 
without efficacy. Hence, the terms are redundant. 

Omitting, then, these three superfluous terms, Mr. 
Jeter's proposition reads thus : — There is an influence 
of the Spirit, differing from moral suasion, but ordinarily 
exerted through the inspired word, in the conversion of 
sinners. 

But this is, in reality, a compound proposition, and 
equivalent to two, of which the first may be expressed 
thus : — In conversion there is an influence of the Spirit dif- 
fering from moral suasion. The second, thus : — This in- 
fluence is exerted ordinarily through the Truth. 

The first of these propositions we may conceive in- 
tended to define the kind of influence exerted; the 
second, to state how it is exerted. But the first is not 
successful It does not define the kind of influence ex- 
erted, but merely says of it, it differs from moral suasion. 
But what it is that thus differs we are not informed. 

4* 



42 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Of course it is not moral suasion, since it and moral sua- 
sion differ : but what else it is we are not told ; we are 
merely told that it differs. But, unless Mr. Jeter knows 
what it is, how does he know that it differs ? If he 
knows not what it is, for aught he knows it may not 
differ. But, if he knows what it is, why did he not tell 
us ? Why merely tell us that it differs, and leave us to 
suspect that he knows not why he thus affirms ? 

But, conceding that it differs, what does it differ 
from ? Moral suasion, we are told. But what is moral 
suasion? Suasion is defined the act of persuading. But 
Mr. Jeter is not speaking of an act, but of an influence. 
Let us suppose, then, that he means by suasion, not the 
act of persuading, but an influence which persuades. 
Joining to this the word moral, we have a moral in- 
fluence which persuades, i.e. the sinner in conversion. 
What, now, can this be, but the influence of the Truth 
as such ? If this is not his meaning, his proposition has 
none. In this sense, therefore, we shall, at all events, 
venture to understand him. 

When, then, Mr. Jeter speaks of an influence differing 
from moral suasion, he means an influence differing 
from the Truth as such. That we are correct in under- 
standing him thus will appear from the manner in 
which he defines this influence elsewhere. It is, he 
observes, (( an influence distinct from and above the Truth." 
Or still more clearly, perhaps, does he express himself 
in calling it (( a supernatural agency in the conversion 
of sinners." Jointly, these expressions define with a 
good deal of precision both the kind of influence for 
which he contends and what it differs from. It is a 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 4o 

supernatural influence, and is distinct — i.e. differs — from 
the Truth. 

Prom this, and from the fact that Mr. Jeter believes 
in the influence also of the Truth as such, it is clear 
that he believes in a plurality of influences in conversion : — 
one, simply an influence of the Truth as such; the 
other, an influence distinct from and above the Truth. 

Now, it is in regard to this latter influence that we join 
issue with him. We utterly deny that such an influence 
is ever, in any case, present in conversion. And here 
let us be understood. We do not, if it be made a ques- 
tion of 1 mere power, deny the possibility of such an 
influence. We merely deny that it is exerted, not that 
it can be. Nor will we, even if it be made a question 
of fact, deny absolutely that it may be exerted. We 
deny that it is exerted, on the ground that we have not 
one particle of evidence that such is the case. This 
extent hath our denial, no more. We are the more 
careful to draw these distinctions because, notwith- 
standing the great clearness and precision with which 
Mr. Campbell has expressed himself on this subject, he 
seems still to be, by some, misunderstood. Hence much 
of the idle and irrelevant talk with which Mr. Jeter's 
chapter on spiritual influence abounds. 

The second of the preceding propositions, as already 
remarked, is intended to state how this influence is 
exerted, — namely, u ordinarily through the Truth." It is, 
then, always exerted, actually and invariably exerted, in 
every case of conversion. Only is it variable in the 
mode of its exertion, being exerted sometimes through 
the Truth and sometimes without it. 



44 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Here now is another point on which we take issue 
with Mr. Jeter. We deny that in conversion any in- 
fluence is exerted by the Spirit except such as it exerts 
through the Truth; in other words, such as belongs to 
divine Truth as such. 

An issue, therefore, is here fairly formed between him 
and us. He believes in an influence in conversion "dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth:" we deny it. He believes 
that this influence is exerted ordinarily through the 
Truth, but sometimes without it: we deny that any 
influence is ever exerted in conversion except through 
the Truth. This makes the difference between us. 

Now, in order to establish these positions what has 
Mr. Jeter to do ? First, he has to produce from the 
Bible at least one passage, which either actually asserts 
or necessarily implies the existence of an influence dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth, as an influence in con- 
version. Second, he has to prove, since this influence is 
distinct from and above the Truth, that it is ever exerted 
through the Truth. Third, that it is ever exerted with- 
out the Truth. Nor is this requiring of him too much. 
For unless the existence of the influence, as an influence 
in conversion, be first shown, its exertion, either through 
the Truth or without it, is inconceivable. And even 
then, each mode in which it is said to be exerted 
must be separately proved. For proving that it is 
exerted through the Truth would never justify the 
inference that it is exerted without it, and the re- 
verse. 

Nor to all this does Mr. Jeter deem himself unequal. 
Certainly he undertakes it, or at least what implies it; 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 45 

and how well he performs his task, we shall now proceed 
to acquaint the reader. 



SECTION II. 

The testimony by which Mr. Jeter proposes to esta- 
blish the "reality" of this influence, he denominates 
"direct and scriptural." This is the best, certainly, 
that the nature of the case admits of; and, should he 
succeed in producing even any such, we shall consider 
him completely successful. Of this testimony we shall 
hardly be expected to notice every passage both quoted 
and referred to; still, we shall notice as much, though we 
may deem it wholly irrelevant, as our limits will allow, 
and certainly every passage on which any special em- 
phasis seems to be laid. 

But is it not a little strange that Mr. Jeter, after 
assuring us that his testimony is "direct," should not 
attempt to establish directly by it the truth of his propo- 
sition, but, instead of this, should proceed to state a 
series of subordinate propositions, intended, it may be, 
to imply its truth, and to these adduce his testimony? — 
in other words, that he should attempt to establish indi- 
rectly the truth of his proposition by direct testimony ? 
But Mr. Jeter is a master of logic ! 

Of these propositions the first is thus expressed :— • 
" Conversion is, in the Neio Testament, described as a birth, — ■ 
a new birth, — a birth of the Spirit" 

Omitting a few of the redundant clauses with which 
Mr. Jeter rarely fails to cumber his assertions, his 
proposition reads thus: — Conversion is described in the 



46 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

New Testament as a birth of the Spirit Now, we deny- 
that such a description is contained in the Bible; and, 
if our denial is not true, it can easily be shown to be 
false. Let the reader examine, by the aid of a concord- 
ance, every passage in the Bible in which conversion 
occurs, and then say whether he has found, even in one, 
such a description. We repeat, it is not in the Bible. 
Had Mr. Jeter merely said conversion is equivalent to 
the new birth, or something to that effect, the assertion 
might have been allowed to pass as substantially correct 
or harmless; but he says conversion is described in the 
New Testament as a birth of the Spirit. It is then not 
merely described; it is described in the New Testament, 
described as a birth, — nay, more, as a birth of the Spirit. 
This reckless proposition teems with falsehood. There 
is not a truthful feature in it. 

But perhaps we should do Mr. Jeter injustice were we 
not to subjoin the passages on which he seems to rest 
its truth. They are two, the first of which is the follow- 
ing: — u That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" But 
does this passage contain a description of any thing? 
especially, does it contain a description of one thing as 
another? plainly, does it contain a description of con- 
version as a birth of the Spirit? The most vulgar common 
sense perceives it does not. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will 
say he cited the passage merely to prove that there is 
such a thing as being born of the Spirit. If so, we shall 
only add, he cited it to prove what we at least have 
never denied. 

The second of these passages is the following: — "We 
know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 47 

he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that 
wicked one toucheth him not." Had this passage been 
adduced to prove the impeccability of human nature in 
certain conditions, or that Satan is denied the power to 
touch a Christian, many, perhaps, might have thought 
it relevant. But Mr. Jeter adduces it to prove that con- 
version is described in the New Testament as a birth of the 
Spirit; and full as well might he have adduced it to 
prove the imponderable nature of heat, or that there is 
such a place as the fabled Styx. Merely quoting the 
passage in connection with the proposition it was in- 
tended to prove best shows the unwarrantable use he 
attempts to make of it. "We shall therefore dismiss it 
without an additional remark. 

But whether conversion is, in the New Testament, 
described as a birth of the Spirit or not, is little to Mr. 
Jeter's purpose. It is freely granted that the New 
Testament teaches the doctrine of a new birth, but 
utterly denied that it teaches the figment which he calls 
the new birth. Nor is it at all material to his con- 
clusion that conversion shall be considered a birth in any 
sense. His position is, that in the nev) birth the divine 
nature is conveyed; and that this conveyance is effected by 
the peculiar spiritual influence for which he contends. This 
position made good, we shall frankly grant he has car- 
ried his point. But, that we may appear to do him no 
injustice when we represent him as holding so strange 
a position, we shall quote his own language. 

" There is," he remarks, " a resemblance between gene- 
ration, or the natural birth, and conversion. The Spirit 
of inspiration has employed this resemblance to elucidate 



48 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the subject of man's moral renovation. In physical 
generation the nature and qualities of the parent are 
conveyed to the child. Adam begat a son in his own 
likeness. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, — that 
is, not merely corporeal, but depraved, corrupt, partak- 
ing of man's fallen nature, as the term e flesh' frequently 
means. So, in the new birth, the nature — the moral 
nature — of the Spirit — of God — is conveyed to his off- 
spring .... The argument, in brief, is this : — that the 
new or moral birth — implying a communication of the 
divine nature — is effected not merely by the written 
w r ord, but is ascribed to a voluntary and efficient agency 
of the Holy Spirit." 

Here now it is deliberately asserted, — first, that in 
conversion the divine nature is communicated; second, that 
this communication is effected by a voluntary and effi- 
cient agency of the Holy Spirit, which, in Mr. Jeter's 
dialect, means a "supernatural agency." 

But is the divine — is any nature communicated in con- 
version? To propound the ridiculous question is to 
obtain sentence against it. It is difficult — indeed, im- 
possible — with those who receive such nonsense to suc- 
ceed in refuting it. Nor, fortunately, is any thing of the 
sort very necessary, since the doctrine is, by its very 
extravagance, completely refuted. Candidly, does Mr. 
Jeter himself believe it? Does he suppose others will 
believe it ? Does he think the human mind so ductile, 
so easily warped, that it can be duped into the belief of 
a thing so utterly fabulous ? Alas for the world if he 
has not reckoned too far on the pliancy of its credulity, 
if he so thinks ! 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 49 

Still, as the doctrine is brought forward in a grave 
argument, intended to settle a great question, we must 
devote to it a more minute attention. What then does 
Mr. Jeter mean by "the divine nature"? He means 
"the moral nature — of the Spirit — of God." But what 
he means by this latter expression he has furnished us 
no means of knowing. From the leading text, how- 
ever, — which he cites to prove, it would seem, that this 
nature is "conveyed" in conversion, — we may infer that 
he means spiritual-mindedness or spirituality. This text 
we have already had occasion slightly to notice, namely : 
— "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," upon 
which Mr. Jeter ventures to ring the following changes : 
— "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, — resembles 
the Spirit, partakes of his holiness, — is spiritual." Spirit- 
uality, then, or a nature resembling that of the Spirit 
and partaking of its holiness, is, we conclude, what he 
means by the expression "moral nature — of the Spirit 
— of God." But it was not to define the sense in which 
he employs this expression that he cited the passage, 
but to prove that the nature of which he speaks is con- 
veyed in conversion. It will then be necessary to look 
yet a little more closely into the meaning which he 
attaches to the passage, as well as into its force as evi- 
dence of what he cites it to prove. 

By what law of language, then, does Mr. Jeter trans- 
mute the substantive Spirit into the adjective spiritual? 
"We utterly deny that he has the right, in violation of 
the known laws of interpretation, to trifle thus with the 
word of God merely to serve a purpose. The passage 
does not say, that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual; 



50 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

neither is this its meaning. It says, that which is born 
of the Spirit is spirit, positively and materially, if we 
may so speak, — spirit; not spiritual, nor yet spirituality, 
but spirit. That which is born of the Spirit, the Holy 
Spirit, is spirit, the human spirit; or, more fully still, 
that which is born of the Holy Spirit, changed or quick- 
ened by it, is the spirit of man, his mind. The passage 
teaches that in that great, vital, and inconceivably im- 
portant renovation denoted by the expression "born of 
the Spirit," it is the spirit of man, his intellectual and 
moral nature, that is the subject of it. This is its mean- 
ing, this its value. We grieve to see a passage which, 
like this, contains a great truth, fall into the hands 
of a man who can transmute it into a prop for the tame 
fantasies of his own brain. 

Once more, let the reader closely inspect the passage 
in hand; let him dissect it, reduce it to its simplest 
clauses, examine each of these attentively, then each 
word ; then let him reconstruct the passage, and, look- 
ing broadly over it a last time, say whether he can dis- 
cover in it the doctrine that, in conversion, the nature, the 
moral nature, of the Spirit of God is conveyed. We ask no 
more. 

But we seem to have forgotten the " resemblance" 
between the natural birth and the new, on which alone, 
after all, Mr. Jeter's whole argument turns. If, how- 
ever, the new birth consists (as he maintains it does) in 
being merely quickened by the Spirit, then we affirm 
that there is nothing analogous to it known to him in 
heaven or in earth. There is, we grant, an analogy be- 
tween the new birth, as defined in the New Testament, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 51 

and natural birth 5 but between the new birth, as quali- 
fied by him, and natural birth, there is no analogy. The 
new birth, as qualified by him, has no foundation either 
in revelation or in nature, and hence bears no resem- 
blance to any created or uncreated thing. 

But the new birth is not a birth in the sense in which 
natural birth is a birth. Indeed, what is called the new 
birth is not a birth. It is merely an event analogous to 
a birth, and is, for that reason, called a birth. Hence, it 
does not belong to the same class of events with natural 
birth, and, consequently, we cannot reason from the one 
to the other as though it did. Yet this is just what Mr. 
Jeter does. He reasons from the natural birth to the 
new as if they were both events of the same class ; and 
as if, consequently, he had the right to infer that 
whatever is true of the one is also true of the other. 
But this can be done (and then only with probable cer- 
tainty) where events do certainly belong to the same 
class, and not where, as in the present instance, they are 
merely analogous. 

It is now easy to see how Mr. Jeter has fallen into his 
error. He cannot know a priori that the divine nature 
is conveyed in conversion ; neither does the Bible teach 
it. On what ground, then, does he assert it ? Simply 
on the ground of a resemblance between the new birth 
and the natural, in the latter of which, nature is com- 
municated. But, unless the new birth resembles the 
natural in all respects, (which it does not,) or is known 
to resemble it in this, (which is not known,) this conclu- 
sion does not follow, — as it clearly does not. 

From all the premises, therefore, now before us, we 



52 KEVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

conclude that Mr. Jeter's doctrine, that in conversion 
the divine nature is communicated, is a sheer fiction; 
and his conclusion, that it is effected by an influence of 
the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth, a gross 
non-sequitur. 

SECTION III. 

Mr. Jeter states his second proposition thus: — "Con- 
version is termed in the Scriptures a creation, and is de- 
scribed in a variety of language of similar import." 

The train of argument implied in this proposition is 
this : — It is first assumed that conversion and creation 
are — not identical events surely, but yet so very similar, 
that whatever power is necessary to create is necessary 
to convert; and then inferred, since almighty power 
alone can create, that it alone can convert. Of course 
the reader is left to infer (a thing which he can easily 
do) that almighty power, and the influence of the Spirit, 
for which Mr. Jeter contends, are the same. l^~ow, 
clearly, the first thing to be done in order to establish 
this proposition is to show the near resemblance be- 
tween conversion and creation which makes them alike 
dependent on the exertion of the same power. But yet, 
on this, although the very point on which his whole 
argument depends, he bestows not so much as a single 
remark. 

But, in attempting to sustain this proposition, Mr. 
Jeter has certainly committed the error of employing 
the term "creation," in his proposition and in the dis- 
cussion of it, in one sense, but in his conclusion in a 
very different sense. He asserts — in which, however, 






REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 53 

as usual, he is not correct — that conversion is termed in 
the Scriptures a creation. But, conceding for the pre- 
sent that he is correct, is it termed a creation in the 
literal acceptation of the term? Mr. Jeter alone will 
say it is. In a metaphorical sense only can the term 
creation be applied to conversion. Yet he, as if not 
in the least aware of this, proceeds to discuss his pro- 
position using the term literally, and then, when he 
comes to draw his conclusion, erroneously infers, since 
the term literally implies the exertion of almighty 
power, that almighty power is exerted in conversion. 
But a moment's reflection ought to satisfy even him 
that when he terms conversion a creation he is not using 
the terra in the same sense in which it is said, in the 
Bible, God created the heavens and the earth. Here it 
denotes not merely to modify or renovate, — the only 
sense in which it can apply to conversion, — but abso- 
lutely and literally to originate. But in this sense it can 
never apply to conversion. 

But, waiving any thing further on this point, we shall 
not hesitate to admit that Mr. Jeter has established the 
conclusion he aims at, provided he succeeds in showing 
that the creation of which he speaks is effected by an 
influence of the Spirit " distinct froift and above the Truth, 
— a supernatural agency" 

The first passage which he urges in defence of his pro- 
position is the following from the prophet Ezekiel : — "A 
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 1 
put within you : and I will take away the stony heart 
out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." 

On this passage three questions arise. First, is it ap- 

5* 



54 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

plicable to the present time ? Second, is it applicable to 
the present question ? Third, in what acceptation is its 
language to be taken ? To the first question we reply, 
the passage was spoken by the prophet to his countrymen 
during their seventy years' captivity in Babylon, and 
is by the context strictly limited to the time then present 
and the times immediately succeeding. To the second 
we reply, the passage, having no reference whatever to 
the present time, can have none whatever to the present 
question, to which it was never intended to apply; and 
when so used it is scandalously perverted. To the third 
we respond, the language of the passage is unquestion- 
ably figurative. Had the Jews literally hearts of stone, 
and was it the intention of the Lord literally to take 
these hearts out of them ? Did he intend literally to re- 
place these hearts with hearts of flesh, and literally to 
put within the people other and new spirits besides their 
own ? To ask these questions is to answer them. The 
stony heart was simply the hard or intractable heart 
on account of which, and the wickedness to which it 
had led, the Jews were carried away into captivity. 
The heart of flesh and the new spirit were simply the 
subdued spirit and pliant disposition which their hard- 
ships while in exile had the effect, in the providence of 
God, to work out for them. 

And yet, of this change, so perfectly natural and so 
easily accounted for, Mr. Jeter says, it was "a work 
which neither men nor angels could perform." So 
thought not the Lord, it seems, when, by the same pro- 
phet, he said to the same people, "Make you a new heart 
and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Is- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 05 

rael?" And as to whether angels could have performed 
the work or not, we dare not say, and feel confident Mr. 
Jeter does not know, though he blushes not to assert it. 
But of one thing we feel profoundly convinced : — that the 
passage does not teach that conversion is effected by a 
"supernatural agency" of the Spirit. 

Mr. Jeter's next and last proof that conversion is a 
creation is the following : — "For we are his workman- 
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which 
God hath before ordained that we should walk in 
them." 

This looks more respectable than any thing we have 
yet had. The passage contains the word "created," and 
sinners are converted. Now, the question is, first, in 
what sense are Christians created? and, second, by 
what power are sinners converted? As a physical 
creation is not contended for, but only a "renovation" 
the first question may be disposed of at once. The only 
remaining question then is, by what power or influence 
is the sinner converted ? Since the effect itself, a reno- 
vation, is a moral effect, — an effect produced upon the 
mind of a moral agent, — the power producing it must of 
course be moral. It must be the power which resides 
in light, when presented to the mind in sufficient quan- 
tity, to influence the judgment, and in the power of mo- 
tives to determine the will. But in nothing save the 
gospel does this power reside ; for it is the power of God 
(both in respect to light and motives) for salvation to 
every one that believes it. 

But Mr. Jeter's language would seem to warrant a 
different conclusion. " The word employed in this text," 



56 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

he remarks, "to denote this renovation, — created, (W!>,) 
— is employed to express that exercise of power by 
which the universe was brought into existence. (Eph. 
iii. 9; Col. i. 16.) No energy short of that which 
brought order out of chaos can renew the soul of man. 
That soul is, in its natural state, a moral chaos, 
— dark, void, formless; and nothing but almighty 
power and infinite grace can restore it to life, light, 
and beauty." 

At times Mr. Jeter grows exceedingly orthodox; as, 
for example, in this extract. So straight, indeed, is he 
at times, that he even appears a little bent; and so 
very sound, that even the orthodox may well suspect 
him for a heretic. Clearly, the spirit was on him while 
writing the foregoing. But on what ground rests his 
broad conclusion? Obviously, on the ground that the 
word "created" has but one meaning, and that a literal 
one. This is essential — absolutely so — to his conclusion ; 
and yet, if he knows any thing about the meaning of 
the term, he knows this to be false. When applied to 
creation, the term has not the same meaning that it has 
in the passage in hand, or when applied to conversion. 
Creation is one thing, conversion quite another; hence, 
the same term in the same sense can never express 
them both. 

SECTION IV. 

Mr. Jeter states his fourth proposition thus : — " Con- 
version is described as a resurrection from the dead. ,y 

And he adopts the same fallacious course of argument 
to establish it which he employs in the preceding simi- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 57 

lar instances. He first assumes that conversion is a 
resurrection; and then, because almighty power was 
exerted in the resurrection of Christ, infers that the same 
is exerted in conversion. But this is not fair. Con- 
version is not a resurrection, even conceding that it is 
one at all, in the sense in which Christ was raised from 
the dead. If it were, then it would be allowable to 
argue from the one event to the other. But the most 
that can possibly be said of the two events is, that they 
are merely analogous; hence, they do not necessarily 
imply the exertion either of the same kind or the same 
degree of power. 

The first passage quoted by Mr. Jeter, in defence of 
his present proposition, is the following : — " But God, 
who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he 
loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick- 
ened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.") 

Here it is distinctly said that God made the Ephe- 
sians, who had been dead in sins, alive: but did he 
make them alive in the same sense in which he made 
Christ alive, when he brought him from the dead ? If 
not, on what ground can Mr. Jeter assert that we are 
converted by the same " energy which raised Christ 
from the dead" ? His error lies in supposing that, 
because two merely analogous events are described by 
the same word, — it being used in the one case literally 
and in the other metaphorically, — they have both re- 
sulted from the same power. But this is manifestly 
erroneous; and yet he persists in affirming that "the 
Ephesians were quickened by the same power that 
raised Christ from the dead ;" and, without the sera 



58 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

blance of authority, asserts it to be " clear from the 
context/' The "context" to which he alludes is the 
following petition of the apostle for the church at 
Ephesus : — " That ye may know what is the exceeding 
greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, accord- 
ing to the working of his mighty power, which he 
wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead." 
Mr. Jeter takes for granted what everybody except, 
himself knows is not true; namely, that to believe 
according to the working of God's mighty power is 
to believe because that power is exerted in us. We 
believe, it is true, according to, or in conformity with, 
the working of God's mighty power. But on whom was 
that power exerted, and when ? On us when we believed? 
Certainly not ; but on Christ when God raised him from 
the dead. By that fact was Christ "declared to be 
the Son of God ;" and, when we believe that fact, we 
believe according to the power which produced it. To 
a discriminating mind this needs no further illustration. 

Mr. Jeter's next " direct, scriptural proof" that the 
Holy Spirit exerts an influence in conversion, " distinct 
from and above the Truth," is the following : — " I have 
planted, Apollos watered : but God gave the increase. 
So, then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither 
he that watereth : but God that giveth the increase." 

The clause " God gave the increase" is that on which 
Mr. Jeter doubtless relies, as containing his "proof." 
But whatever a passage does not actually assert or neces- 
sarily imply, it does not teach. Now, does the passage 
actually assert that the Corinthians were converted by 
an "influence distinct from and above the Truth"? or 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 59 

does it even necessarily imply it? Obviously, it does 
not assert it. Unless, then, it necessarily implies it, 
it does not teach it. Will Mr. Jeter affirm that the 
passage necessarily implies it? If so, we demand on 
what ground? Is it because God cannot give the in- 
crease in any other way ? Mr. Jeter is not ashamed 
to represent Mr. Campbell as " prescribing" a "limit" 
to the power of the Spirit : is he now prepared to 
assume the odious position himself? If not, he will 
not think us unreasonable when we request him to 
dispose of the argumentum ad hominem. 

A passage of Scripture is to be taken not in the whole 
extent of impossible, but only in the whole extent of its 
actual and necessary, signification. Whatever falls not 
legitimately within these limits is not matter of faith, but 
matter of speculation. Doctrines taught only by possible 
implication are doctrines untaught, to which class clearly 
belongs the doctrine of an influence in conversion " dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth." The most that can 
possibly be claimed for it in the present instance, if even 
this much can be claimed, is, that it is not impossible it 
may be implied. But are we to be called upon to believe 
a doctrine true, to believe it taught by the holy word 
of God, merely because it is not impossible some passage 
may imply it ? We cannot think so. And this is our 
sin. For this we must be proscribed as heretical by 
such men as Mr. Jeter. But, if mere possible implication 
is the rule which orthodoxy and her votaries prescribe, 
then we dissent from their canon, and proudly accept, as 
the chief distinction which they can bestow, the charge 
of being heretics. 



60 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

But "the text teaches/' says Mr. Jeter, "that the 
success of gospel ministers, even the most eminent, 
whether in the conversion of sinners or the improve- 
ment of saints, is of divine influence." That is, their 
success depends on a "supernatural agency' 1 of the Holy 
Spirit; for this is the only conception he has of divine 
influence. And, continues he, "the doctrine is accord- 
ing to analogy."* "In the vegetable kingdom," he 
assures us, "God gives the increase;" and even con- 
descends to acquaint us with the astounding fact that 
"the most skilful husbandman on earth cannot make a 
blade of grass grow without divine aid. It would be 
easy to show," he further remarks, "that the same 
principle pervades the animal kingdom;" and then adds, 
" we might reasonably infer that this principle extends 
into the kingdom of grace." That Mr. Jeter might 
reasonably infer it, we dare not deny; but that a "Camp- 
bellite" should ever do so, is, we know, the event least 
likely to happen of any other in the three kingdoms of 
which Mr. Jeter speaks. A " Campbellite" would be 
most certain to limit his inferences to what the Scrip- 
tures do teach, either by actual assertion or necessary 
implication, and all beyond, we feel assured, would be 
)eft to the speculatist and to Mr. Jeter. 

But, in regard to the expression "God gave the in- 
crease," w r e wish to say distinctly, we cordially believe 
it teaches that God crowns the labors of his servants 
with success. What we deny is, that it teaches that he 
does so in the mode contended for by Mr. Jeter. We 

* "Analogies prove nothing." — J. B. Jeter, p. 169: " Campbellism 
examined." 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 61 

believe the fact because the word of God asserts it, and 
all beyond the fact is fiction. Where the all-wise Creator 
has thought it best to withhold an explanation of the 
mode in which he executes his will, we think it safest to 
venture none. But not so Mr. Jeter : he speaks, as if he 
were the embodiment of light, where angels need be mute. 



SECTION V. 

Mr. Jeter's next "proof" of "the doctrine of a super- 
natural agency in the conversion of sinners" is the follow- 
ing: — "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the 
Truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren : 
see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 

It is here distinctly said that the persons whom the 
verse addresses had purified their souls in obeying the 
Truth. Of course, then, Mr. Jeter will admit that purifi- 
cation of the soul, at least, is not dependent on the 
peculiar influence he advocates. Since, then, this in- 
fluence is not exerted in order to purify the soul, in 
order to what else, if at all, is it exerted ? In order to 
dispose the heart to receive and be guided by the Truth, or 
in order to produce obedience, is his conclusion. His 
language is: — "An influence distinct from and above 
the Truth is indispensable to the production of this obe- 
dience. The Holy Spirit exerts this influence not in 
revealing new truth or creating new faculties, but in 
disposing the heart to receive and be guided by the 
gospel." 

But no passage of Scripture is safely construed, when con- 
strued to mean more than its terms will fairly import. Now, 



62 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

in the light of this golden rale, the truth of which is 
intuitively perceived, do we feel that Mr. Jeter's con- 
clusion is justified by the passage in hand? We cannot 
feel so. But, he will doubtless urge, they obeyed through 
the Spirit, and this implies the conclusion. Does it, 
indeed? Even granting the most that he can ask; to 
wit, that in construing the passage, the clause, through 
the Spirit, is to be construed with the word obeyed, and 
still does the conclusion follow? Can the clause, "through 
the Spirit/' mean only, through an influence of the Spirit dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth? If not, how can Mr. 
Jeter know that another influence is not meant? Will 
he answer these questions? Never, we predict. If he 
affirms that only an influence distinct from and above 
the Truth is meant, then we deny utterly that the terms 
of the clause fairly import the meaning, and demand other 
and weightier testimony than his bare word that he 
affirms truly. The truth is, that in this, as in the pre- 
ceding instance, the most that he can claim for his doc- 
trine is, that it is not impossible it may be implied. 
One brief sentence exhausts his logic : — it is not impossi- 
ble his doctrine may be implied, therefore it is true. 
But the question between him and us is not a question 
of mere possible implication, but a question of fact. Does 
the Spirit in conversion exert on the sinner an influence dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth? This is the question. 
And we require that it be made good not by pas- 
sages of Scripture which may possibly imply it, but by 
passages which either actually assert it or necessarily 
imply it. This done, Mr. Jeter has carried his cause : 
this not done, he has utterly failed, and left the truth 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 63 

with the adverse side. But this as yet he has not 
done; neither will he do it, unless he produces other 
stronger and more pertinent evidence than is contained 
in the preceding passage. 

The expression obeyed through the Spirit, conceding 
this, which is not admitted, to be the proper collocation 
of the words, can be shown safely to import no more 
than this : — -that the Spirit did, through the apostles 
whom it inspired, present, to the minds of those whom 
they addressed, the Truth, which is ever able to make wise 
to salvation, and the sufficient motives to induce their 
obedience to all commands of the gospel. This exposi- 
tion strikes our common sense as just and natural; it 
falls within a no strained construction of the clause, 
and accords with facts; and all beyond this lies far 
within a region of vague conjecture. 



SECTION VI. 

Mr. Jeter closes what we may term the first part of 
his defence of his theory of spiritual influence with the 
following passage : — "For this is the covenant that I will 
make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the 
Lord : I will put my laws into their mind, and write them 
in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, and they shall 
be to me a people." 

In this passage the Lord declared by his prophet that 
during the reign of Christ he would put his laws into the 
mind and write them in the hearts of his people, — a declara- 
tion upon which Mr. Jeter relies as sustaining his theory. 
Now, be it distinctly noticed, that the passage asserts 



(54 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

only a fact, leaving the mode of its occurrence wholly 
unexplained. But a passage which asserts only a fact 
can never be used in proving mode, unless the mode to 
be proved is itself the fact asserted. And yet Mr- Jeter 
employs this passage to prove mode and nothing else. 
He is not attempting to prove the fact that God puts his 
laws into the mind and writes them in the hearts of his 
people, but the mode in which he does it, — the mode 
being the only thing in dispute. In a word, he is at- 
tempting to prove that God does this by a " process/' to 
use his own language, " above the power and skill of 
men or angels." What, now, is this "process" ? " The 
inward and effective agency of the Holy Spirit," says 
Mr. Jeter. And then, in order to prove this, he cites a 
passage which, concerning "process" or "the inward 
and effective agency of the Holy Spirit," says nothing, 
and is hence wholly irrelevant. True, all facts occur in 
some specific mode ; but then the mode in which a fact 
occurs is one thing and the fact itself another ; and con- 
sequently, unless when a passage states a fact it also 
explains the mode of its occurrence, although it is com- 
petent to establish the former, yet it is of no avail in 
proving the latter. Hence, it turns out that Mr. Jeter's 
present "proof" proves nothing, unless it is that his 
theory is proofless. 

In regard to the passage, one thing is certain : — its 
language is figurative. What, then, is its meaning? 
Here we must again caution the reader against con- 
struing a passage to mean more than its terms will 
fairly import. The passage, then, can only mean that, 
during the reign of Christ, God would cause his people to 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 65 

understand his laics, and these laws to be impressed on their 
hearts. In order to this, two things, and only two, are 
necessary: — 1st, that God cause his laws to be pub- 
lished in an intelligible form; 2d, that he accompany 
this publication with such sanctions, such tokens of 
paternal kindness, and such inducements to obedience, 
as to awaken fear, engage affection, and enlist our self- 
love. And all this our heavenly Father has done. His 
laws are intelligible to a degree exactly equaling our 
accountability; and no terrors are equal to the " terrors 
of the Lord/' no love equal to that with which he " first 
loved us," and no inducements to obedience equal to 
" immortality and eternal life." 

Prom all of which we conclude that Mr. Jeter's " pro- 
cess above the power and skill of men or angels," his 
u inward and effective agency of the Holy Spirit," rests 
on no foundation better than the fabulous traditions of 
his church, or the fictions of his own brain. 



SECTION VII. 

We have now to notice the second part of Mr. Jeter's 
defence of a supernatural agency in the conversion of sin- 
ners," — a part which seems to have been suggested by 
the following position of Mr. Campbell, to wit : — That 
the Holy Spirit personally dwells in the Christian to help 
his infirmities while exerting himself to attain to eternal life. 
Mr. Jeter's language is, "I go further, and insist that, 
the influence of the Spirit in sanctifi cation being ad- 
mitted, it follows, as a logical sequence, that the same 
influence is exerted in conversion, which is but the com- 

6* E 



66 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Hienceinent of the work of winch sanctification . is the 
progress." This is not a new doctrine, but the old, 
argued on a new ground. The influence of the Spirit 
contended for is still an influence distinct from and 
above the truth, and the mode of exerting it is by imme- 
diate contact of the Holy Spirit with the human. Mr. 
Jeter's first " direct proof/' under this head, in defence 
of his doctrine, is the following : — 

"My first argument respects the power of the Holy 
Spirit. It is this : — if the Spirit can and does dwell in 
believers, actually and powerfully assisting them in the 
mighty struggle for eternal life, then he can exert a 
similar influence in enlightening, quickening, and re- 
newing the ungodly." 

Not quite correct, we venture to say. Mr. Jeter's first 
argument is intended to "respect" his position, and is 
derived from the power of the Holy Spirit. But his 
" first argument" is in reality no argument at all. It 
is merely an instance of the fallacy of shifting the ground 
in debate. The question between Mr. Campbell and him 
is not a question respecting what the Spirit can do, but 
a question respecting what it does. In regard to what 
the Spirit can do, as an abstract question or a question 
of power, Mr. Campbell raises no question. We repeat, 
the question is not as to what the Spirit can do, but as 
to what it actually does. And, since an argument re- 
specting what the Spirit can do (which is the argument 
of Mr. Jeter) has no tendency to establish a statement 
respecting what it does, it turns out that Mr. Jeter's 
" first argument" proves nothing. 

Speaking in regard to the foregoing position of Mr. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 67 

Campbell, Mr. Jeter says, (p. 161,) "I do not, I trust, 
misunderstand Mr. Campbell on this vital subject. He 
teaches that all that is done in us before regeneration 
— which, in the Bethany dialect, means i born of water/ 
or immersion — 'God our Father/ not the Holy Spirit, 
' effects by the word? but after our new birth, c the Holy 
Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our 
Savior/ " In this extract occur two things, to which 
we request the attention of the reader. 

1. "Regeneration means, in the Bethany dialect, born of 
water, or immersion." 

Once for all, we wish to correct this stale falsehood, 
which has been repeated by every reviler of Mr. Camp- 
bell, from Greatrake down to Mr. Jeter. The satisfac- 
tion with which these gentlemen have dealt in this 
barren tale seems to have been real, heartfelt, com- 
plete. They have had exquisite pleasure in repeat- 
ing it. 

Kegeneration, in the Bethany dialect, is exactly equiva- 
lent to the new birth ; and the new birth, in the Bethany 
dialect, means to be begotten by the Spirit and to be born of 
water, or immersed. But, because birth applies rather to 
the act of being born — the last act — than to any act 
preceding it, so, in the Bethany dialect, regeneration 
applies rather to the act of being born of water — the 
last act — than to any act preceding it. But, as birth, 
though applying rather to the last act than to any act 
preceding it, includes nevertheless all the other acts 
which precede it, or the whole process of generation, so 
regeneration, though in the Bethany dialect applying 
rather to the last act — the act of being born of water — 



08 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

than to any act preceding it, includes also all the other 
acts preceding it, or the whole process of being born 
again. In this sense iind in this only, and for these 
reasons, has Mr. Campbell ever employed the word 
" regeneration" as equivalent to being born of water, 
or immersion. And if in every instance where he has 
used the word he has not stopped to qualify it thus, 
still, he has done so so often elsewhere that no excuse 
can be pleaded for repeating the preceding vulgar 
slander, which Mr. Jeter, with all his simulated fair- 
ness, is not ashamed to repeat. 

A single extract from Mr. Campbell — an extract, too, 
well known to Mr. Jeter — will set this matter forever at 
rest. "By the bath of regeneration," says Mr. Camp- 
bell, " is not meant the first, second, or third act, but the 
last act of regeneration, which completes the whole, and is, 
therefore, used to denote the new birth. This is the reason 
why our Lord and his apostles unite this act with water. 
Being born of water, in the Savior's style, and the bath 
of regeneration, in the apostles' style, in the judgment of 
all writers and critics of eminence, refer to one and the 
same act, — to w r it : Christian baptism." In the light of 
this well-weighed and cautiously-worded paragraph, in 
which it is the intention of Mr. Campbell to define his 
position, what are we to think of the regard for truth 
and morality, of the regard for the rights and reputa- 
tion of others, of the man who has the front to come 
forward and say, Regeneration means, in the Bethany 
dialect, born of ivater, or immersion? 

2. "All that is done in us before regeneration, God our 
Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word." 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. (>9 

Mr. Campbell not only never penned this, but never 
any thing which implies it. This is what he has said 
after it has passed through the mind of Mr. Jeter, the 
dissimilarity between which and a filter is striking. 
Fluids when passed through a filter come out in their 
freest form from impurities; but truth passed through 
the mind of Mr. Jeter strangely comes out error. Had 
the alchemists of old possessed such an instrument 
acting in a reverse manner, long since would all baser 
metkls have passed into gold. 

Mr. Campbell has, we grant, said that all that is done 
in us before regeneration, (by which he means immer- 
sion in the sense just explained,) God our Father effects 
by the word; but he has never said, neither does his 
language imply it, that all that is thus done in us, God 
our Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word. 
Not the Holy Spirit was not in his thoughts when he 
penned the sentence. This expression falsifies his sen- 
tence ; but it is a falsification for which Mr. Jeter, and 
not Mr. Campbell, is responsible. True, God our Fa- 
ther is conceived of, in the Bethany dialect, as the 
author, but the remote author, of that of which the 
Spirit is deemed the more immediate agent; namely, 
all that is effected in us before immersion. What God, 
however, thus effects, he effects by the Spirit; what the 
Spirit thus effects, it effects by the Truth. This ap- 
proaches much nearer both to the Bethany thought 
and the Bethany dialect. 



70 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



SECTION VIII. 

" My second proof/' says Mr. Jeter, " is derived from 
the nature of sanctification. It is progressive holiness. 
It is beautifully described by the wise man : — l The 
path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth 
more and more unto the perfect day :' Prov. iv. 18. 
Eegeneration is the commencement of holiness. Re- 
generation and sanctification do not denote different 
processes, but the same process in different stages. 
They resemble each other as the child resembles the 
man, or the dawn resembles the day. . . . Conversion 
is holiness begun ; sanctification is holiness progressing : 
but in both cases the holiness is of the same nature, 
tendency, and origin." 

1. Holiness and sanctification, in almost every case 
where they occur, are represented by one and the same 
word in the original; or, still more to the point, the 
original word which is rendered sanctification is in- 
differently rendered either holiness or sanctification. 
Since, then, the same original word means indifferently 
either sanctification or holiness, how can sanctification 
be " progressive holiness"? This is just the same as 
saying that sanctification is progressive sanctification, 
which is as ridiculous as to say a line an inch long is a 
line an inch long progressing a little. Thus briefly, 
then, do we dispose of a part, and a chief part, of the 
" second proof," which turns out to be absurd. 

2. But the main point in the " second proof," if it 
has any, and its chief defect as a " proof," is an assump- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 71 

tion. It is assumed that conversion is effected by the 
same influences by which Christian life is admitted to 
be in part sustained ; and this in part is true, but it is 
not the part that is true that is assumed. It is assumed 
that the immediate influence of the Spirit, which we 
maintain to be necessary to sustain and perfect the 
Christian life, is also necessary to conversion. aSTow, 
this is precisely the thing which we deny, and which, 
therefore, should not have been assumed but proved. 
We maintain that the Spirit dwells in the Christian, 
because the word of God asserts it; and deny that it 
acts immediately on the sinner, because the word of God 
does not assert it, neither imply it ; and since what we 
deny does not follow from what we admit, clearly, it 
should not have been assumed to follow, but proved. 
Admitting that the Spirit affects Christians, in whom 
it dwells, in a particular way, by no means justifies the 
inference that it affects sinners, in whom it cannot 
dwell, in the same way. The admission and the in- 
ference have no such connection with one another as 
to enable us to deduce the one from the other. From 
knowing that the Spirit acts on the sinner through the 
Truth only, we should never be able to infer that it 
dwells in the Christian, neither the reverse. Hence, 
the main point in the " second proof," which happens 
to be an assumption, turns out to be naught. 



SECTION IX. 

"My third proof," remarks Mr. Jeter, "is drawn from 
the direct testimony of revelation. The Scriptures, I may 



72 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

remark, in general terms, ascribe conversion to divine 
agency in language as clear, strong, and varied as they 
do sanctification. The Spirit that nourishes is the 
Spirit that begets : the power that preserves is the 
power that creates." 

At sight this position seems plausible ; but, on a little 
closer inspection, we detect in it, unfortunately for its 
plausibility, another instance or two of the fallacy of 
shifting the ground. The ground in dispute is not 
whether conversion is effected by divine or some other 
agency. We strongly insist that conversion is effected 
by divine agency. For if the Spirit be divine so is its 
agency; and if the Truth be divine so must be its influ- 
ence ; and to these in all cases do we ascribe conversion. 
But this is not the question. Neither is it whether the 
Spirit that nourishes is the Spirit that begets. There is 
one Spirit. The question is, whether the Spirit which 
is admitted to dwell in Christians, but not in sinners, 
affects the latter in conversion in precisely the same 
way in which it affects the former after conversion. 
This is the question at issue, which Mr. Jeter under- 
takes to make good, but the merits of which he never 
touches. 

However, in confirmation, we shall suppose, of the 
real question at issue, he subjoins the following pas- 
sage : — " Being confident of this very thing, that he who 
hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the 
day of Jesus Christ." In regard to this passage we shall 
only say, if its meaning is to be regarded as settled, (and 
we believe it is,) it is clearly against Mr. Jeter; but, if not, 
then certainly it proves nothing, The "good work" re- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 73 

ferred to in the passage was a contribution for the spread 
of the gospel which the Philippians were nobly engaged 
in raising, and not "the work of grace in the soul/' as 
Mr. Jeter asserts, which God, by some hidden influence, 
had begun in them at their conversion, and was still 
carrying on. 

But, even granting that by the "good work" is meant 
their conversion, what then? The passage merely 
asserts that God had begun this work and was still 
carrying it on, but by what influences it does not say, 
and hence does not decide. But, if Mr. Jeter cites the 
passage merely to prove that the "work" was of God, 
— that is, that it was begun and carried on by him, — 
then he cites the passage to prove what we, at least, 
have never denied. 

In regard to the other passage cited by Mr. Jeter, — 
namely : "for it is God who worketh in you [Philippians] 
both to will and to do, of his good pleasure," — we have 
to say, that as it refers wholly to what God was doing 
in them as Christians, and not to what he had done for 
them as sinners, it has, therefore, no relevancy what- 
ever to the question in hand. Since then, from the 
"direct testimony of revelation," Mr. Jeter derives no 
"proof" in confirmation of his position, that position 
must be held as resting on no other than human au- 
thority, and hence as false. 



SECTION X. 

"My last remark," says Mr. Jeter, in closing his 
"direct" proofs, "concerns the honor of the Holy Spirit. 



74 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

The theory which I am opposing represents the infinite 
Spirit as condescending to carry on and complete a 
work which was commenced and passed through its 
most difficult stage without his influence." 

Whose theory it is that represents the Spirit as con- 
descending merely to complete a work which, without its 
influence, has passed through its most difficult stage, we 
know not ; but of two things we feel profoundly certain : 
— 1st, that it is not Mr. Campbell's theory; 2d, that to 
effect conversion is not half so difficult a work as to 
achieve the ultimate safety of the converted. According 
to Mr. CampbelPs theory, conversion is in every case 
effected by the influence of the Spirit; but then comes 
the question, what influence is meant ? He denies that 
it is an influence u distinct from and above the Truth," 
and maintains that the Truth itself is that influence; 
and, since Mr. Jeter has not proved the thing which 
he denies nor refuted the thing which he maintains, 
we shall here let the question rest. 

When Mr. Jeter asserts that conversion is a more 
difficult work than the Christian life, he establishes one, 
if not more, of three things, — namely : either that he is 
acting disingenuously in order to create the impression 
that there is a necessity for his peculiar spiritual influ- 
ence, or that he is profoundly ignorant of the character 
of the Christian life, or of that of conversion. We should 
not be surprised if all three are true of him. 

We here close our examination of Mr. Jeter's de- 
fence of his proposition that "there is an influence of the 
Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from moral 
suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the inspired word, in 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 75 

the conversion of sinners" We now submit the case to the 
reader with the single remark, that, if competent to form 
a judgment, and candid, we fear not his decision. 

It is proper to state that we have found no little 
difficulty in collecting out of some seventy-five pages 
of matter, whose predominant trait is a masterly con- 
fusion, the entire material part of Mr. Jeter's defence. 
Still, we believe we have succeeded in doing so. And 
while, as we conjecture, he may deem these strictures 
at times severe, yet in no sense do we feel that he can 
think them unjust. To misrepresent him for the worse 
would be difficult indeed, and to represent him fkirly 
is, with men of thought and acquainted wdth the Bible, 
to refute him; hence, we have no interest to present 
him in any other than in his own light. 



7t> REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



CHAPTEE III. 

INFLUENCE OP THE SPIRIT IN CONVERSION — OUR OWN DOCTRINE 
STATED AND DEFENDED. 

SECTION I. 

We now proceed to state our own doctrine respecting 
the influence of the Spirit in conversion, and to present 
a brief view of the grounds on which it rests. The 
work upon which we are now entering is certainly of a 
nature calculated to impart a far higher pleasure than 
that in which we have just been engaged. For, how- 
ever necessary it may be to expose the errors of an 
opponent, it can never be so pleasing a task as defend- 
ing our own cause, especially when true. The thing 
first in order, then, is to state the proposition to be 
maintained, to wit : — 

The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through the Truth 
only. 

Before entering upon the defence proper of this pro- 
position, we have a number of preliminaries to submit, 
which, having the effect to limit and otherwise qualify 
the proposition, will enable us to enter upon the discus- 
sion of it with a more distinct view of what we are 
undertaking. 

First, then, in regard to the Spirit itself, we wish to 
state distinctly that we conceive it to be a Person, in 
the sublimest sense of the word. We do not conceive 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 77 

it to be a mere influence or impersonal emanation from 
the Father, or the Son, or from both ; but, in the strict- 
est sense of the term, a person. As to its nature, it is 
spirit; personally, it is the Spirit; officially, the Holy 
Spirit. Personally considered, these expressions may 
be said to exhaust the sum of human knowledge re- 
specting the Spirit. Assuming these views to be cor- 
rect, no effort is here made to defend them. 

Second, the proposition to be discussed is not a ques- 
tion of power. It is not a question as to what the Spirit 
can do, but a question as to what it does. Nor is it 
even a question as to what the Spirit does, except in 
conversion. In regard to what the Spirit can do, as an 
abstract question, we venture no speculations. We 
presume to assign no limits to power where we can 
imagine none. We do, however, presume to think, 
without here stopping to assign the reasons for so 
thinking, that the Spirit does, in order to effect the 
conversion of the human family, all it can do according 
to the all-wise plans of the Savior, and in harmony 
with the perfect freedom of the human mil ; and that 
it can, not for physical but for moral reasons, do no 
more. 

And what is here said may be taken as a reply to 
much irrelevant, if not foolish, talk in which Mr. Jeter 
indulges 'about what the Spirit can do, and about ex- 
pressions of Mr. Campbell to the effect that the Spirit 
can operate only in this way or cannot act in that. 
Mr. Campbell has never presumed to pen a line in 
regard to the absolute power of the Spirit, or the 
question, as an abstract one, What can it do? And 

7* 



78 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

when he makes remarks to the effect that the Spirit 
cannot operate except thus and so, it is because ope- 
rating otherwise is conceived to contravene some law 
of the human mind, or to transcend the limits within 
which salvation is to be effected, and is hence inad- 
missible. All such remarks of Mr. Campbell are 
limited, and necessarily so, either by the nature of the 
subject he is speaking of, or the proposition he is dis- 
cussing. The slightest attention to a few points like 
this would have saved Mr. Jeter much simulated anxiety 
occasionally to understand him. 

The question, then, which we are to discuss, is not a 
question of power, but a question of fact, and, hence, 
is to be decided not by speculation but by testimony, and 
that not human but divine. 

Third : we wish to distinguish between what may be 
called strictly the influence of conversion, and those 
other influences which, though purely incidental or 
circumstantial to it, yet in many instances serve greatly 
to aid it, and which we shall denominate providential 
influences. This distinction is important, and we regret 
that our limits compel us to treat it so briefly. 

Providential influences may be divided into two great 
classes : — First, such as are purely human ; second, 
such as are either not human or not purely so, the 
influence of the Truth being excepted. 

To the first class belongs the influence of the church 
as such, or, more properly speaking, the influence of 
her members as members of the church. When the 
members of the church are living in the faithful and 
conscientious discharge of their duty, their influence 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 70 

for good is great. They relieve, for example, the wants 
of the poor, and thus gain over them an influence, 
gratefully acknowledged in most cases, by which they 
may induce them to frequent the house of God, where, 
if they receive that considerate attention which, we 
grieve to say, they seldom receive, their minds soon be- 
come enlightened, and their hearts impressed, and as 
the result many of them become obedient to the Faith. 

Again, Christians mingle in the world, and thus form 
friendships which make them the confidants of those 
with whom they associate. This confidence may often 
be availed of to impart much useful information, to 
correct many a vicious habit, and frequently to induce 
even an entire reformation of life. In these and various 
other ways, too numerous to mention, may the members 
of the church often be of the greatest service in in- 
ducing sinners to enter that circle within which the 
Truth is almost sure to take effect. 

To the first class also belongs the influence of the 
preachers of the gospel, as such. Their duties well per- 
formed can, in point of effect, hardly be overestimated. 
If the Truth is distinctly stated and sufficiently ampli- 
fied, and kept free from all enfeebling speculations and 
traditions, and urged home to the heart with tenderness 
and feeling, its power is just resistible, no more. 

To the second class may be referred those sad reverses 
of life which tend to break the hardness of the heart, 
and thus prepare it for the reception of the Truth. When 
bereft by death of those whom he loves, how, like a 
wounded bird, does the sinner steal away into some 
lone spot to meditate a reform of life ! How prepared 



80 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

now for the reception of the Truth ! And even the 
lighter and less noticeable, but still painful, incidents of 
life often have much the same effect. How, when away 
from the endearments of home and with the stranger's 
heart, does the sinner turn into the house of God to catch 
the holy accents of Truth, and to muse on a home where 
the ties of friendship shall be broken nevermore. These 
reverses often serve, like the frosts of winter, to mellow 
the soil of the human heart, which the Truth can pene- 
trate all the deeper for the work they have done. 

To affirm, as Mr. Jeter does in substance, that these 
are all so many means through which the Holy Spirit, 
" infinite in grace and power," accomplishes the conver- 
sion of the sinner, is to affirm what he has no evidence 
to prove. It is to affirm what the Bible does not teach, 
what reason cannot know, and what, therefore, the in- 
telligent Christian cannot receive. Indeed, in regard 
to the whole subject of providential influences, as well 
as in regard to the influence proper of conversion, Mr. 
Jeter's mind seems to be in complete confusion. Clearly, 
he does not understand us, he does not understand the 
Bible, and we seriously doubt whether he understands 
himself. 

Fourth : the proposition to be discussed limits the dis- 
cussion strictly to conversion. As to how, or to what 
extent, the Spirit may affect persons not in conver- 
sion, it says nothing. All it affirms is, that the Spirit 
operates in conversion. Again, such is its structure 
that it must be considered, not simply as affirming 
our own doctrine, but also as denying that of our oppo- 
nents. It says, in conversion the Spirit operates through 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 81 

the Truth. This is in fact all we affirm, and, hence, is 
all we can in fairness be called upon to prove. We do 
not affirm that the Spirit does not operate except through 
the Truth, and thus lay ourselves under obligation to 
prove a negative. We deny that it operates except 
through the Truth, and thus devolve on the party 
affirming to the contrary, the responsibility of proving 
it. This is in reality the force, and we desire it to be so 
understood, of the word only, with which the proposition 
ends. In our discussions hitherto of this subject we 
have given our enemies the advantage in the wording 
of the proposition to be discussed. It is now time (and 
we trust our brethren will not be heedless of the hint) 
that we should change our policy. Let us assume the 
ground which, in strict logical propriety, belongs to us, 
and hold our enemies firmly to the position which their 
doctrines assign to them. We affirm that in conversion 
the Spirit operates through the Truth, and no more. 
Our enemies affirm that it operates both through the 
Truth and without it. Let them now make the position 
good. We deny it, and here take our stand. 

Indeed, the very proposition which Mr. Jeter under- 
takes to establish is, that the Spirit does operate otherwise 
than through the Truth. Or, at least, this is one of his 
propositions ; for, in reality, he has two, — one defining, 
or rather attempting to define, but not defining, the two 
kinds of influence for which he contends; the other 
stating the two modes in which these influences are 
exerted. Here, now, were we confined to strictly logi- 
cal grounds, we should be compelled to close the present 
controversy, and demand judgment against the adverse 



82 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

party. For Mr. Jeter has not proved the existence in 
conversion of an influence of the Spirit distinct from and 
above the Truth; neither that in conversion the Spirit 
exerts any influence except through the Truth. Hence 
the controversy; so far as he is concerned, is here fairly 
brought to a close, and in our favor. Indeed he con- 
cedes to us the very ground we claim, and the only 
ground which, in this controversy, it is possible to settle : 
namely, that the Spirit does operate through the Truth. 
His language is: — "It is freely admitted that the Spirit 
operates through the word in the conversion and sancti- 
fication of men." What then have we to do? Simply 
nothing. It would be impossible to close a controversy 
more completely in favor of one of the parties than the 
present controversy is here closed in our favor. We 
shall, however, waive all technical advantages and pro- 
ceed to place the doctrine we advocate on its own proper 
foundation. We do not ask that it be received as true 
merely because conceded or because our opponent fails 
to establish his doctrine. Our doctrine has its own 
deep, strong basis on which it rests, to which, after the 
definition of a few terms, the meaning of which it is 
necessary clearly to state, we shall proceed to call the 
attention of the reader. 



SECTION II. 

First, then, in what acceptation do we employ the 
term conversion? Certainly not in one for which we 
shall plead the authority of Sacred Writ, and which, for 
that reason, it is necessary we shall clearly state. We 



REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 83 

employ it then throughout this chapter to denote strictly 
a mental and therefore a moral change, and not as includ- 
ing any outward act of obedience. In other words, we 
employ it as exactly equivalent to the expressions born 
of the Spirit, born of God, assuming these to be identical 
in sense. 

When then the Spirit produces in the sinner that 
change of which in every case it is the immediate 
author, denoted by the expression born of the Spirit, 
through what instrumentality does it operate? We 
respond, It operates through the Truth. 

But what do we mean when we say the Spirit operates 
through the Truth? We mean that it operates by the 
Truth; that is, that divine Truth is itself the vital power 
by which in all cases the Spirit effects conversion; in 
other words, that the Spirit spends on the mind of 
the sinner in conversion no influence except such as 
resides in the Truth as divine, as of the Spirit. And we 
shall further add, that neither in quantity nor in force 
do we conceive that this influence can be increased and 
the human will be left free. We are now prepared for 
the defence of our proposition. 

Our first argument is, that the necessity does not exist for 
any influence in conversion except such as is exerted through 
divine Truth, and that hence no other is exerted. 

In the present controversy this argument must be 
conceived as having great weight. Nothing is done in 
effecting redemption for which there does not exist a 
necessity. And in all cases in which, like the present, 
a peculiar interposition is denied, the necessity for it 
must be first clearly shown, otherwise such denial stands 



84 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

good against it. Neither can we assume the existence 
of such necessity, unless we could show one or more 
actual facts for which we could not account without it, 
which in conversion cannot be shown. Were it either 
proved or conceded that in conversion an influence dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth is exerted, then certainly 
we might infer a necessity for it; and such necessity 
would become a legitimate ground of argument. But 
that such an influence is exerted is neither proved nor 
conceded. Hence the existence of a necessity for it 
cannot be assumed. Moreover, where a necessity exists 
for doing a thing, there exists a reason for doing it; but 
where no such necessity exists, the presumption is, that 
the thing, if done at all, is done without a reason, which 
in the case of conversion is not admissible. "We hence 
conclude that in conversion no influence is exerted dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth. 

And what is here said suggests the true theory of the 
argument usually urged from depravity in defence of an 
influence above or not in the Truth. It is first assumed 
that man is totally, or, as Mr. Jeter has it, "utterly," 
depraved. It is then urged that this utter depravity, or 
rather the resistance which is met with from it in con- 
version, cannot be overcome by any force of divine 
Truth, however great, and that there is hence a ne- 
cessity for another and greater influence. But, instead 
of assuming this, which is the main point in their argu- 
ment, let the advocates of this peculiar influence come 
forward and show us, either by indisputable and perti- 
nent facts, or by passages of Holy Writ clear and rele- 
vant, that man is thus depraved; then, and not till then, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 85 

will their argument be of any force or entitled to any 
respect. 

SECTION III. 

Our second argument is, that any influence more intense 
than that of divine Truth and above it, such as Mr. Jeter 
contends for, would, of necessity, infringe the freedom of the 
human will, and hence cannot be admitted to be present in 
conversion. 

In order to be responsible man must be left free. To 
whatever extent we interfere with his perfect freedom, 
whether in sinning or in obeying, to that extent precisely 
we destroy the essential nature of his act as a moral 
agent and degrade him to the level of a mere machine. 
All we can do for him or with him, as a moral agent, is 
to present the Truth, proved to be such, distinctly to 
his mind, and then leave him free as the unfettered 
wind to accept it or reject it. The instant we restrain 
him by external force or constrain him by internal 
influence, that instant he ceases to be a freeman and his 
act is not his own. 

Now, there is but one case we need consider : — that 
of a man unwilling to receive the Truth. For, if a man 
is perfectly willing to receive the Truth, it is impossible 
to conceive the advantage to him of an influence de- 
signed to have only the effect to make him willing. 
But he is, suppose, no matter from what cause, unwilling 
or disinclined to receive the Truth. But the Spirit in- 
terposes with an influence distinct from and above the 
Truth, and inclines him to do the thing which he him- 
self is inclined not to do. Is this the act of a man 

8 



86 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

acting of his own will, or is it not rather the act of a 
man acting against his will? Certainly, Mr. Jeter will 
doubtless tell us, it is the act of a man acting of his 
own will, for the Spirit gives the man the will. The 
case then is simply this : — the man is not compelled to 
act against his will, but compelled to accept a will 
which is not his own. We shall leave the reader to 
decide how much this improves the case. 

According to this theory, which is the theory of Mr. 
Jeter and his brethren, conversion is in no sense — not 
even in part — in the power of the sinner himself, but 
depends absolutely on the power and will of another. 
Now, we request him to acquaint the world whether the 
sinner, so circumstanced, is responsible for not being 
converted until the Spirit exerts on him that peculiar 
influence for which he contends; whether, in a word, 
the sinner is responsible for being what he cannot but 
be, — a sinner ? We feel pressed with the necessity for 
light on this subject, and trust our reasonable request 
will not go unheeded. 

But why, Mr. Jeter will doubtless ask, leave the sin- 
ner so free, and place the Christian, by the indwelling 
of the Spirit within him, under an influence affecting 
the freedom of his will ? We reply, that no such thing 
is done. The Christian has the will, but lacks the 
power; hence the Spirit only helps his infirmity without 
affecting his will. To aid the Christian to do what he 
is already more than willing to do, but lacks the power 
to do, is a very different thing from constraining the 
sinner to do against his will what he has the power to 
do. True, God works in the Christian, as we conceive, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. S7 

both will and deed; but then he works the will by 
motive, — the only thing that can determine the will, — 
and the deed by lending aid when the power is lacking. 



SECTION IV. 

Our third argument is, that the Spirit does not exert on 
the sinner a special influence to induce him to receive the 
Truth and obey it, when he is perfectly conscious he can and 
should do both without that influence. 

There are some acts which a man is as conscious he 
has the power to perform as he is of his own existence. 
His hand, for example, lies at rest. Now, it cannot be 
said that he is more conscious of his existence than he 
is of the power to move that hand. Nor is he simply 
conscious of the power to move it : he is also conscious 
that such and such motives would induce him to exert 
that power ; and his consciousness is no less vivid in the 
latter case than in the former. There is not a sin he 
commits which he feels not the conscious ability to 
refrain from committing. He may feel that it is very 
certain he will not refrain, but still he feels perfectly 
conscious that he can do so. Nor is this less true in 
regard to duties, even the highest. A man to whom the 
proposition is presented and explained is as conscious 
of the ability to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, as he is of the ability to move his hand when it 
lies at rest. It is this very consciousness of the ability 
to do what yet perhaps he neglects to do, not because 
he cannot do it, but simply because he does not resolve 
to do it, that constitutes his negligence a crime and 



88 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

makes him feel guilty in the sight of God. Destroy the 
consciousness of this ability, and that instant you take 
away not only his sense of guilt, but even the guilt 
itself; for man never yet sinned where he felt a con- 
scious inability to refrain from sinning. Whether man 
is thus conscious or not is not a debatable point. Within 
himself he carries the clear and certain proof that he 
is so. 

That the Holy Spirit should, by special influence, 
induce men to do what they are conscious they both can 
do and ought to do without such influence, is as destitute 
of countenance from the Bible as it is subversive of 
every principle of moral government. God aids men to 
do only what he knows they cannot do without his 
aid, and not what they know they can do and are con- 
scious they should do without it. And, should it be 
alleged that men never become thus conscious without 
a special influence, we reply that then all men have 
been already the subjects of it; for there is not a man 
in Christendom to whom the gospel has ever been 
preached who is not thus conscious. He may pretend 
to be infidel or atheist and consequently deny that such 
is the case; but he can never silence the voice within 
him which asserts the contrary. 

Mr. Jeter's doctrine presents the sinner in a strange 
predicament, truly. He is perfectly conscious he can 
believe the Truth and obey it; and yet it is perfectly 
certain that, without an influence distinct from and 
above the Truth, he can do neither. He resembles a 
man with an amputated arm, who is perfectly conscious 
he has the power to move an arm, and yet it is perfectly 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 89 

certain that unless by miracle he receives an arm he 
cannot move one. And so with the sinner; he is per- 
fectly conscious that he can believe the truth and obey 
it, and it is perfectly certain that without a peculiar 
influence from the Spirit he can do neither. 

But (may it not be said ?) a man is as conscious of the 
ability to live the Christian life, as he is of the ability 
to believe the Truth and obey it; and that hence, by 
the preceding argument, the gift of the Spirit is not 
necessary to the Christian. But this is not true. In- 
deed, it is a curious fact that, while men never doubt their 
ability to believe the Truth and obey it, they ever doubt 
their ability to live the Christian life. It is precisely in 
regard to this point that they do doubt their ability. 
Not only do they distrust themselves in regard to the 
Christian life, but they seem to feel half conscious that 
they are unequal to it; and hence, from this very dis- 
trust, many long decline entering on it. We conclude, 
then, instead of its being true that men are as con- 
scious of the ability to live the Christian life as they are 
to believe the Truth and obey it, that the very reverse 
is true. 

SECTION V. 

Our fourth argument is, that the Savior and the apostles 
always addressed their audiences as if their conversion de- 
pended alone on the Truth they heard, which is inconsistent 
with the hypothesis that it depended on the Truth and some- 
thing else. 

Now, the case admits of but two solutions. Either 
the conversion of their audiences depended alone on the 

8* 



90 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Truth which they heard, or the Truth was inadequate 
to effect it. If we accept the former of these solutions, 
the preaching of the Savior and the apostles is easily 
accounted for. We then have reason not simply in 
what they preached, but also for their preaching. At 
once we see a fitness and propriety in all they said and 
did, and can account for that inimitable naturalness in 
their speeches, which carries them so directly to the 
heart. Their adaptation of the Truth to the mind with 
such exquisite skill is then easily explained. We then 
see the reason why their proclamation of the Truth was 
attended with such, peculiar and striking evidences of 
reality and power. All this is easily understood if we 
only reflect that conversion depends on the Truth. But, 
if we accept the latter of these solutions, certainly the 
preaching of the Savior and the apostles, if not what 
they preached, becomes a riddle of no ordinary intri- 
cacy. They knew that the Truth was inadequate to 
effect conversion, if such is the case, and yet they 
preached the Truth. They knew that their audiences, 
without, in Mr. Jeter's language, "a new and peculiar 
process," could not receive the Truth; and yet they 
pressed it on them. They knew that their audiences 
could not receive the Truth; and yet they denounced 
condemnation against them for rejecting it. Shall this 
be charged on the Savior and the apostles? Or shall 
we say that all whom they addressed were, by this 
"peculiar process," prepared to receive the Truth? 
Certainly not; for we know that many, very many, 
rejected it. Or shall we suppose that "an influence 
distinct from and above the Truth" accompanied it to 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 91 

render it efficacious? Where, we ask, first, is the evi- 
dence, and where, second, the advantage? Still, con- 
version in many cases did not ensue. Or shall we be 
told that, although without this influence none can 
receive the Truth, still, with it all are at liberty to re- 
ject it? In the one case, then, since the rejection of the 
Truth is necessary, — i.e. results from an inability to 
receive it, — the rejection is, of course, no sin. And yet 
if there is any one thing taught in the Bible more clearly 
than another, it is, that the condemnation of those to 
whom the gospel is preached dates certainly from the 
instant in which they reject it, and for that very reason. 
And, in the other case, since men are still at liberty to 
reject the Truth, still free to do with it as they will, 
where is the advantage of the influence ? With it men 
do no more than what they do without it. 

Let any one who is not blinded by a false system of 
religion attentively study the speeches of the Savior 
and the apostles, and nothing will strike him more 
clearly than this : — that they delivered their speeches 
precisely as other men do, assuming the ability of their 
audiences to understand and receive what they said, 
without any thing more than simply saying it, and 
leaving them to abide the consequences of rejecting it. 
This is the view which first and chiefly strikes that 
elemental common sense with which all are endowed; 
and it is not until that common sense has been com- 
pletely stultified by some pernicious theory of religion 
that men abandon this view, and blindly adopt one 
which neither sense nor revelation sanctions. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



SECTION VI. 

Our fifth argument is, that in no land or age has there 
ever yet occurred a single case of conversion without the 
Truth: a fact which proves that conversion is effected only 
through the Truth. 

The light of the solar system would seem to depend 
not more absolutely on the presence of the sun, than 
does conversion on the presence of the Truth. This 
fact is of itself enough to settle forever the truth of 
our position. Indeed, we should find it difficult to 
establish the connection between cause and effect, if 
conversion is not here shown to depend on the Truth 
alone. Where the Truth is, there conversion may 
occur; but where the Truth is not, there it cannot 
occur, — at least it is very certain it never does occur. 

If an effect were never known to happen except 
when a particular circumstance was present, yet did 
happen in thousands of cases when that circumstance 
was present, though not in every case, no one would 
for a moment hesitate to pronounce that circum- 
stance the cause of the effect; and the cases in 
which it did not happen would be accounted for by 
supposing the presence of some disturbing or counter- 
vailing influence. But what is this but the case of con- 
version stated? Conversion happens, though not in 
the case of all, where the Truth is; but where it is 
not, never; and even where the Truth is, the more 
frequent will conversions be — other things being equal — 
the more distinctly the Truth is presented to the mind, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Do 

and the freer it is kept from impurities when trans- 
mitted to the heart. And the cases in which conver- 
sion does not occur are owing to no want of power or 
lack of vital force in the Truth, but to its not being 
perceived or understood to be the Truth, or to the 
willful resistance offered to it. But it is not necessary 
to elaborate this argument ; to state it is enough. In- 
deed, the mere statement of it would seem to establish 
the truth of the proposition now in hand as conclu- 
sively as it is possible to establish any proposition, 
unless we could produce it in the very words of the 
Bible. We shall only add, that the fact here stated 
and the conclusion deduced from it have stood for ages 
the reproach of the man-invented system of conversion 
advocated by Mr. Jeter and his brethren. 



SECTION VII. 

Our sixth argument is, that the Apostle James ascribes 
conversion to the Truth and to that alone, which forbids the 
belief that it is effected by the Truth and something more. 

The passage on which we base this argument is the 
following : — " Of his own (the Father's) will begat he us 
with the word of Truths The term here translated 
" begat" we should state, is not the term which is 
usually in the New Testament rendered begat. But 
its meaning is equally as clear, and its force and extent 
of signification precisely the same, as the usual term, 
when the usual term is employed to express the agency 
of the Spirit in conversion. All, then, that the term 
" born" denotes, or can denote, in the expression " born 



94 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

of the Spirit, 19 is here expressed by the term "begat" 
Each term alike exhausts the subject, and each alike is 
complemented by the subject. One has not a shade 
of meaning which the other has not. They are synony- 
mous. 

We shall assume, presuming that the position will 
not be questioned, that what the passage ascribes to 
God as its author is ascribed to him as the remote 
author, and was in reality effected by the Spirit as 
the more immediate agent. Hence, of course, we as- 
sume that whatever the term "begat" denotes was 
effected by the Spirit. 

" Whatever, then, is effected by the Spirit in conver- 
sion, and all that is effected by it, is, in the passage, 
comprehended in and expressed by the term "begat. 99 
Hence, whatever the influence was, in kind or degree, 
by which this effect was produced, is the influence, in 
kind and degree, by which conversion is effected. What 
now was that influence ? To this question the clearest 
answer is necessary, and to this question the clearest 
answer is at hand. That influence was "the word of 
Truth, 99 or simply the Truth. " Of his own will begat he 
us with the word of Truth. 99 If this passage does not 
settle the question now at issue, then it would seem 
that it is never to be settled. It is either an untaught 
question, and, hence, should not be debated, or it is a 
mere ground for endless and fruitless wrangling, and, 
hence, should be abandoned. What, we inquire, is the 
fact which it is the intention of the passage to assert ? 
what, in other words, is its predication ? Is it this : — 
"Of his own will begat he us' 9 t It is not; and, although 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 95 

this is asserted, yet this is not the whole, nor even the 
chief feature, of the assertion. That feature is, " Of 
his own will begat he us with the word of Truth" The 
passage contains the answers to two questions : — 1. Are 
we begotten by the Father? 2. And if so, by what 
means ? To the first question the passage replies, We 
are begotten by the Father. To the second it replies, 
We are begotten by the Truth. 

Here, then, in the present passage, the truth of our 
proposition is asserted, actually and unequivocally as- 
serted, in language as clear, strong, and pointed, as 
human ingenuity can invent, or human speech supply. 
If its truth is not asserted, — if, in other words, it is 
not asserted that conversion is effected by the Truth, — 
what form of human speech, we ask, could assert it ? 
The reply is, none. 

Eut, Mr. Jeter will doubtless say, I admit that the 
Spirit "ordinarily" effects conversion through the Truth, 
but maintain that in doing so it exerts through the 
Truth a peculiar vital influence not inherent in it, — that 
a virtue which is no part of the Truth goes out of the 
Spirit through the Truth into the soul, converting it. 
In other words, he will doubtless maintain, that, as a 
spark of electricity discharged from a point passes 
through the atmosphere into an attracting object, so 
an essential, quickening influence, being discharged from 
the Spirit, passes through the Truth into the soul, con- 
verting it. 

But where, we ask, in the first place, is the evidence 
that this is true ? Soberly, we ask, where ? If Mr. Jeter's 
prospects for eternity were staked upon making it good, 



96 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

with sadness we should add, he is a doomed man. But 
this is precisely the point at which the difference be- 
tween him and us begins to show itself. We maintain — 
i.e. Mr, Campbell and his brethren — that in the Truth 
as such, that is, in the Truth as divine, as of the Spirit, 
resides the power by which in all cases the Spirit effects 
conversion : a power which, as we conceive, cannot be 
intensified and the human will be left free, and which, 
for that reason, is all the influence that can be admitted 
to be present in conversion. We go further, and main- 
tain that it is as much the law of conversion that it 
shall be effected by the Truth, as it is of reproduction 
that an oak shall spring from an acorn and not from a 
miracle; and, further, that we are no more at liberty 
to suppose the Spirit absent from the work of conver- 
sion from the fact that it is the law of conversion 
that it shall result from the Truth and not from some- 
thing else, than we are to suppose the Creator absent 
from the work of reproduction from the fact that it 
is the law of reproduction that an oak shall spring from 
an acorn and not from a miracle. 

But, in the second place, we inquire, has not the ex- 
pression (l the word of Truth 11 its own proper, individual 
signification or value, — a value which belongs to it 
simply as the expression u the word of Truth, 11 — which 
can neither be increased nor diminished, and in which 
the influence for which Mr. Jeter contends is not in- 
cluded? Either it has, or that influence is included 
in the expression as an integral part of it, as a part 
of its own individual signification simply as the ex- 
pression u the word of Truth. 11 Now, let Mr. Jeter 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 97 

choose his alternative. If he choose the former, then 
is he pledged to abide the following conclusion. Of his 
own will begat he us : how ? By the word of Truth ? 
No. But by the word of Truth and something else. 
Hence, when the passage says, "Of his own will begat 
he us by the word of Truth" since the expression the word 
of Truth is not equivalent to the expression the word of 
Truth and something else, it asserts not the whole truth, 
but suppresses at least half of it, and is hence false. 
This is the fatal reef on which Mr. Jeter's doctrine 
drifts him, and no skill or cunning on his part will 
enable him to escape it. Or does he accept the latter 
alternative, and say that the influence for which he 
contends is included in the meaning of the expression 
the word of Truth? — that it belongs to it as part of its own 
individual signification? — that, in brief, it is part of, or 
resides in, divine Truth as such? If so, then he and we 
are agreed, and so the controversy is at an end. 



SECTION VIII. 

Our seventh argument is, that the Apostle Peter ascribes 
conversion, or being born again, to the Truth, and to that 
alone, as the means by which it had been effected; and that, 
therefore, we are not at liberty to ascribe it even in part to 
another and unknown cause. 

The passage on which we rest the present argument is 

the following : — "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, 

but of incorruptible, by the word of God" The original 

term here rendered "being born again" is the term 

which is usually, in the New Testament, rendered by 
9 G 



98 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the words begat, begotten, born, — with this difference : 
the term is here combined with a particle which has the 
force, in the present case, of the word again, or the 
prefix re. The term, as employed in the present pas- 
sage, expresses precisely what is meant by the expres- 
sion "born of the Spirit;" and the effect which it denotes 
is to be ascribed to the Spirit as the author of it. Con- 
sequently, we have now to determine, not what effect 
was produced, but by what power it was produced; not 
what agent was employed, but with what instrument it 
wrought. In a word, the effect is known, and we have 
now to seek the instrumental cause from which it re- 
sulted. And in all such cases what is the method of 
procedure ? It is briefly this : — 

We have an effect A, which is supposed to result from 
two causes, B and C. We first try to produce the effect 
with B, and fail. We then try C, and fail. In this case 
the effect is held to be a joint result from both B and C. 
Or we try to produce the effect with B, and fail. We 
then try C, and succeed. In this case the effect is held 
to result from C alone, and B is excluded. 

But, it will no doubt be said, the present is not a ques- 
tion in experimental philosophy. True: but w T hat it 
lacks of being a question in experimental philosophy it 
happens to have in being decided by a still less fallible 
authority; and, hence, the conclusion arrived at has all 
the certainty of one arrived at by actual experiment. 

The effect in hand is denoted by the expression "being 
born again." Mr. Jeter maintains that this effect re- 
sulted from the joint influence of two causes, — to wit : 
the Truth, and "an influence distinct from and above the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 99 

Truth." We deny that the latter cause had any hand 
in producing the effect. Let, now, the difference be- 
tween us be decided by divine authority. How, then, 
was the effect produced? The Bible answers, u by the 
word of God." Unless, then, the second cause consti- 
tutes an integral part of " the word of God," (which it 
cannot, since it is "distinct from and above' ' it,) it was 
excluded from any share in producing the effect ; hence, 
that effect resulted from the first cause alone, — the 
Truth; and, therefore, our proposition is true. Indeed, 
we now feel at liberty to say, it is impossible to esta- 
blish the truth of any proposition, either by argument 
or Holy Writ, if the present and preceding arguments 
do not establish the truth of ours. 

We are not at all ignorant, however, of the impotent 
clamor which Mr. Jeter and a few bigots will raise 
against these conclusions. This, they will cry in the 
ears of the multitude deep-mired in the "ditch," is the 
"word-alone system." Many a gracious compliment will 
be lavished upon the sectarian divinity, Orthodoxy; and 
her smiles will be deemed more than a compensation for 
all failures to defend her cause. But we beg to tell 
these gentlemen that this is not the "word-alone sys- 
tem." The "word-alone, system" conceives the Spirit 
to be ever absent from the work of conversion ; this 
system conceives it to be ever present : the "word-alone 
system" conceives the Truth to be as destitute of vital 
force as the words of an obsolete almanac ; this system 
conceives the Truth, since of the Spirit, to teem with an 
intense quickening power, but ever resident in the Truth 
as divine: the "word-alone system" is false; this sys- 



100 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

tern is true. These are a few, and but a few, of the dis- 
tinctions between the " word-alone system" and this. 
But, should Mr. Jeter still clamor, Yet is your system a 
word-alone system, we reply, Then are we the intrepid 
advocates of a word-alone system, and deny that the 
Bible knows any other. 

We shall here take occasion to say, that the word 
"born," both in the preceding passage and in the one 
which we shall next cite, is not the word which most 
accurately expresses the sense of the original ; but, as 
the difference is one which does not in the least affect 
the arguments respectively based on them, and as we 
purpose adverting to the matter again elsewhere, we 
shall for the present give it no further notice. 



SECTION IX. 

Our eighth argument is, that belief in Christ and being 
born of God are identical ; and that, since belief in Christ 
depends on the Truth alone, therefore being born of God, or 
conversion, depends on the Truth alone. 

The passage on which we base this argument is the 
following: — "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
is born of God. n From this passage it is most clear 
either that to believe that Jesus is the Christ and to be born 
of God are identical, or that they are so inseparably con- 
nected that we cannot produce the former without, at 
the same time and by the same means, producing the 
latter. This point, being actually asserted, we do not 
allow to be debatable. Whatever influences, then, will 
produce belief in Christ will also produce the effect — if 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 101 

belief itself is not that effect — denoted by the expression 
"born of God" But the meaning of this expression is 
the acceptation in which we are now taking the term 
" conversion. " "With the view, therefore, of ascertain- 
ing on what immediate cause conversion depends, we 
shall now proceed to ascertain on what immediate cause 
belief or faith depends. 

The passage we shall first adduce is the following 
from the parable of the sower: — "Now, the parable is 
this : the seed is the word of God. Those by the way- 
side are they that hear : then cometh the devil and 
taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they 
should believe and be saved." The word, then, or the 
Truth, it seems, can, and actually does, enter the hearts 
of the wayside men. And if it can penetrate the hearts 
of these, it will hardly be thought that it lacks the 
power to penetrate the hearts of any others. But Satan 
interposes j and for what ? There is a result to be pre- 
vented: that result is salvation. But, in order to pre- 
vent this result, there is another, antecedent, specific 
result to be prevented, which is belief. To prevent 
belief, then, immediately, and salvation remotely, is the 
object for which Satan interposes. And full well does 
he know how to prevent a result or an effect. He re- 
moves whatever the result depends on, or the cause of 
the effect, and the work is done. Now, what cause does 
he remove from the hearts of the wayside men in order 
to prevent belief? and he certainly removes the real 
cause. Is it an influence distinct from and above the 
Truth? This question, ought to silence Mr. Jeter for- 
ever. But no; this is not the cause which Satan re- 



102 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

moves from the hearts of the wayside men. "He taketh 
away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe." 
The word ; then, or the Truth, is that immediate cause 
on which belief depends ; hence, the word or the Truth 
is the immediate cause on which conversion depends. 
If this is not demonstration, — moral, that is, — then 
there is no meaning in the term. 

But we are not quite done with the wayside men. 
Mr. Jeter says, the influence for which he contends is 
exerted "ordinarily" through the Truth. Is it now ex- 
erted on the wayside men, or is it not? Of course it 
must be one or the other. Suppose, then, it is exerted. 
Still the Truth is taken away ; but, when the Truth is 
taken away, what becomes of the influence ? Does it 
remain? If so, where is the advantage in it? for the 
men are still infidels. But suppose it is not exerted. 
Still there remains in the word a power fully adequate 
to produce belief without it ; hence, it is not necessary. 

The passage we shall next quote to show on what im- 
mediate cause faith depends is the following: — "So, 
then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
God." This is one of those fine passages which no 
sophistry can so pervert as quite to hide its meaning. 
It is the comprehensive statement of an innumerable 
number of cases, and, as a brief religious formula, serves 
the admirable purpose of preventing a tedious enumera- 
tion of all the circumstances, remote and near, on which 
faith as an ultimate result depends. It states a great 
fact in religion; and, therefore, with great propriety, 
states it with remarkable perspicuity. It pointedly 
asserts that faith comes by hearing, i.e. by hearing the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. l03 

word of God. And only what it asserts it teaches. 
Indeed ; since it asserts strictly that faith conies by hear- 
ing the Truth, the implication is that it comes in no 
other way. For ; the instant we show that faith results 
from the Truth and some other cause, say an " influence 
distinct from and above the Truth/' that instant we 
cast a doubt over the passage. If, for illustration, it 
was the avowed purpose of an individual to whom the 
causes were all known to account for a given effect, and he 
should say, This effect results from such and such a cause, 
at the same time suppressing one of them, what should 
we think of him ? Could we conceive of him as speak- 
ing but to deceive? "When an apostle undertakes to 
assign the causes of a result, does he suppress one of 
them? 

But, I grant, Mr. Jeter will say, that faith comes by 
hearing the word of God, but maintain that the Spirit 
must aid the sinner to hear — that" is, to understand and 
receive — the Truth. But of the truth of this there is no 
evidence. It is a mere creation of the human fancy, 
countenanced neither by reason nor the Bible. It grew 
out of that inveterate form of depravity insisted on by 
Mr. Jeter, and which is itself a dream. Hence, the 
dream became parent to the fancy, which is the true 
account of both. 

"We conclude, then, since belief in Christ and being born 
of God are identical, and since belief in Christ is shown 
by the preceding premises to depend on the Truth 
alone, that the Truth alone is that on which depends 
being born of God, or conversion. 



104 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



SECTION X. 

Our ninth argument is, that the original of John iii. 8 
in its most natural sense — that which it yields by the 
soundest rules of interpretation — teaches that being born 
of the Spirit (or conversion) is effected by hearing or re- 
ceiving the Truth. 

The well-known rendering of this verse in the com- 
mon version is, " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and 
thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it 
cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born 
of the Spirit." 

In citing this verse as the basis of an argument, we 
have three objects in view : — 1st, to ascertain, if pos- 
sible, its real meaning; 2d, to show that in its real 
meaning it teaches the great doctrine for which we are 
contending; 3d, to show that the popular interpreta- 
tion of it is false. 

In the outset we shall assume that the verse in the 
original contains an explanation of the long-litigated 
clause, " born of the Spirit.'" In doing so, we are not 
unmindful of the fact that a very different view has 
been thought to be the correct one. For, by very gene- 
ral consent, it has been held that the verse contains 
an illustration of the mysterious manner in which the 
Spirit quickens the sinner into life. This w r e conceive 
to be the radical misconception which has utterly ob- 
scured the sense of this fine passage. 

Without one solitary verbal mark in the original in- 
dicative of an illustration, or the slightest indication in 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 105 

the verse itself or the context that such a thing was 
either meant or necessary, has the verse been assumed 
to be illustrative and rendered accordingly. A more 
unaccountable departure from some of the best-esta- 
blished laws of exegesis than its rendering in some 
respects exhibits, it has not been our lot to meet with. 
And long since, we doubt not, the present rendering 
would have been utterly discarded, had it not, by the 
mystery in which it wraps the sense of the verse, ad- 
ministered to the well-known species of fanaticism on 
spiritual influence of which Mr. Jeter sighs to show 
himself a champion. No man ever yet thoughtfully 
read the passage in the English Bible and then laid it 
down feeling satisfied that he understood what he had 
been reading. This circumstance alone should long 
since have suggested the suspicion that the sense of 
the original was not fairly dealt with. 

And, believing this to be the case, we propose to re- 
translate the whole verse. In doing this we expect to 
discover an apt, germinal explanation of the expres- 
sion "born of the Spirit." Of course, in a statement 
brief almost to obscurity, we expect to find nothing 
elaborated but much suggested. "We expect to find the 
subject explained, touched rather by those single rays 
of light with which the Savior pencilled so matchlessly, 
than illumined by the whole splendor of his eloquence. 
We expect to meet rather those hints which, cautiously 
traced out, lead to the truth, than to meet, at first sight, 
the truth itself. Still, we expect to find something de- 
terminate, something appreciable. 

We propose submitting, as we proceed, first, a trans- 



106 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

lation of each single word of most of the verse : we 
shall then briefly append the reasons for the render- 
ing, and, occasionally, shall distribute these words into 
appropriate groups for the sake of indicating more 
clearly their collective sense. 

First, then, in regard to the word which, in the com- 
mon version, is rendered "wind." This word occurs in 
the Greek New Testament three hundred and eighty- 
six times. In three hundred and eighty-four of these 
it is rendered into English either by the term "spirit" 
or by its inelegant equivalent "ghost." Once, in the 
book of Eev elation, it is rendered "life," where, with 
equal propriety and more consistency, it might have 
been rendered "a spirit." But not in a single case in 
the New Testament, except in the verse in hand, is it 
rendered "wind." Now, in translating, one great rule 
to be observed is this : — to translate the same original 
word uniformly by the same equivalent English word, 
unless the sense forbids it. No translation is deemed 
good which violates this rule, none very faulty which 
does not. Now, since the word in hand, out of three 
hundred and eighty-six instances, is, in three hundred 
and eighty-four of them, uniformly rendered into Eng- 
lish either by the term "spirit" or by a term having 
precisely the same meaning, the presumption in favor 
of a similar rendering in the two remaining instances 
is as three hundred and eighty-four to two. And when 
it is remembered that the sense interposes no obstacle 
to such a rendering, this presumption becomes an im- 
perious necessity. For these reasons, therefore, we do 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 107 

not hesitate to render the word in hand "spirit" mean- 
ing, thereby, the Holy Spirit. 

Should the case be thought to require it, we may 
add, that this rendering has been suggested, if it is not 
still sanctioned, by names which stand justly high in 
learning and sacred criticism. Its claims, however, 
upon public confidence must rest ultimately on its own 
merits. 

Next, respecting the word translated "bloweth" 
This word is found in the Greek New Testament but 
seven times ; in six of which it is used to express the 
acts of things, and only in the remaining instance (the 
present) the act of a person. But, in almost every case 
where expressive of the act of a person, it is to be ren- 
dered into English simply by the word "breathe" And 
this is so obviously the word by which it is to be ren- 
dered in the present instance, that we shall attempt no 
defence of the rendering. 

But in what acceptation are we to take the word 
" breathe" ? — a literal or a figurative? To answer this 
question at once, we inquire, Does that essential, sub- 
tle person, whom we denominate the Spirit, perform 
the act we call breathing ? Can we predicate of it such 
an act in any intelligible sense, — especially in the sense 
in which we say of a man, he breathes ? Certainly not. 
To do so would be to assert what we believe the very 
nature of the case forbids ; for it does not consist with 
our notion of spirits that they breathe. They may 
cause breathing, as the human spirit; but they them- 
selves breathe not. Hence, since the act itself — breath- 
ing — is not conceivable, we are not permitted to con- 



108 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

strae the term as meaning it. We decide, therefore, to 
construe the term figuratively, and this the nature of 
the case requires. 

But what does the term "breath" signify? what 
does it express? We reply, it certainly expresses ac- 
tion, but in such a way as not to indicate the precise 
kind of act performed. This we learn, as we shall pre- 
sently see, and with much certainty, from the attendant 
circumstances. 

The expression "where it listeth" maybe slightly im- 
proved thus: — where it sees fit. So far, then, the verse 
reads thus: — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit. 

In the remark next succeeding, — to wit: "and thou 
hearest the sound thereof," — we have the clue to the par- 
ticular act expressed by the word "breath," which, of 
itself, is indefinite. But, in order to trace out this clue 
and show to what it leads, we must examine strictly the 
meaning of the word rendered "sound" This word is 
met with in the Greek New Testament one hundred and 
forty-one times ; in one hundred and thirty-one of which 
it is rendered "voice;" in eight, including the present 
case, "sound;" in one, "noise;" and in one case is joined 
with a verb, and rendered " noised" Generically, the term 
expresses sound simply; specifically, a particular kind of 
sound. Hence, before we can, in a given case, correctly 
render it into English, we must know what particular 
kind of sound is meant, or from what subject it proceeds. 
In the case in hand it was clearly the force, and nothing 
else, of the preceding substantive, wind, which deter- 
mined it to be rendered sound. But since the original 
of wind does not mean wind, but Spirit, the presumption 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 109 

is that the original of sound does not mean sound, but 
something else. 

Now, in every other case in the New Testament (a 
few doubtful ones perhaps to be excepted) where it de- 
notes sound proceeding from a person, without distinc- 
tion as to whom, that sound is the voice of such person 
heard in the act of speaking. Hence, since in the pre- 
sent case the term denotes sound proceeding from the 
Spirit, a person, that sound is, if there be any value in 
induction, determined to be the voice of the Spirit heard 
in the act of speaking. We therefore decide that voice 
is the true rendering. But this voice is what is heard 
in the act, breathing; hence, breathing and speaking 
must be only two different names for the same act, with 
this distinction, — that breathing is figurative, speaking 
literal. 

So far, then, the verse reads as follows : — The Spirit 
breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; the mean- 
ing of which is, the Spirit speaks where it sees fit, and 
you hear its voice, or what it says. 

But are we borne out by facts elsewhere to be col- 
lected in asserting of the Spirit that it speaks? We 
certainly are. The Savior says, "When he, the Spirit 
of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ; for 
he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall 
hear, that shall he speak." The foregoing conclusion, 
then, though fully justified by the verse itself, is thus 
corroborated by facts. 

But the Holy Spirit, in an unembodied form, never 

uttered a monosyllable in a human ear or communicated 

a thought to a human being. Only when in man does 
10 



110 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

it speak to him. As the Word became incarnate to 
save, so the Spirit becomes embodied to enlighten. But 
when in man, it then speaks by him to him for him. 
But it has thus spoken only through the prophets and 
apostles. Hence, what we hear from the Spirit, and all 
we hear, is what it has spoken by them. Consequently, 
in construing the word speak, in the clause the Spirit 
speaks, we are not to limit it to the mere act of speaking, 
but to construe it largely as embracing all the prophets 
and apostles have said, or the entire word of God. Thus, 
likewise, are we to construe the word hear in the expres- 
sion "you hear its voice." 

Since, then, the Spirit speaks, what does it speak ? The 
response is, The Truth. Hence it is called "the Spirit 
of truth." But truth is distributed into truth proper, 
and facts; and facts again into facts past or history, 
facts present, and facts future or prophecy. Hence, 
truth proper, and facts past, present, and future, as far 
as they involve the question of human salvation, consti- 
tute the grand themes on which the Spirit speaks to 
man. But it was not enough that the Spirit should 
speak: all it says must be authenticated. Hence its 
truths are confirmed by its facts ; its facts again by the 
most complex yet simple, strange yet natural, compact 
yet extended, body of testimony known to or to be con- 
ceived by the human mind. It is what the Spirit has 
thus spoken and authenticated that man hears; and 
what he thus hears that enlightens him ; and what thus 
enlightens him that he believes; and what he believes 
that melts him into pity, inspires him with hope, or 
moves him to action, as the case may be. There is no 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Ill 

rescinding this law of nature or modifying this order of 
things. 

Next, concerning the clause "but thou canst not tell 
whence it cometh and whither it goeth," which we shall 
alter but slightly, thus : — but you know not whence it comes 
and whither it goes, which is a literal rendering of the 
original. This clause has been for ages past, and still 
is, the glory and the shame of the blind guide, — at once 
his subterfuge, his decisive argument, his joy, and his 
puzzle. Who, when the mystic doctor has been pressed 
on his favorite myth, — spiritual influence, — has not seen 
him close the argument with a triumphant air, thus ? — 
"Ah, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh and 
whither it goeth." Even Mr. Jeter, like "the silent 
owl on stealthy wing," floats into the gloom of the pas- 
sage and there disappears. He merely quotes it, with 
no attempt to explain it, leaving us in charity to hope 
he may know something about it, but with many a 
suspicion that he knows nothing. 

The clause occurs, slightly varied, three times, and 
but three, in the New Testament, — twice in the following 
extract: — "Jesus answered and said to them, Though I 
bear record of myself, yet my record is true ; for I know 
whence I came and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence 
I came and whither I go." It is in the form here last 
occurring, with a slight variation, that the expression 
is applied to Mcodemus. The Savior, in the extract, 
applies it first to himself to express something which he 
alone knew: — "I know whence I came and whither I 
go." He then applies it adversatively to the audience 



112 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

to indicate that what he knew they did not know : — 
"but ye cannot tell whence I came and whither I go." 
Now, the form of the expression applied to the audience, 
and that applied to Mcodemus, mean precisely the same 
thing, with this difference : — the Savior applied it to the 
Jews to express something which they did not know of 
him, but which they should have known ; to Mcodemus 
he applied it to express something which he did not 
know of the Spirit, and which at that time perhaps he 
could not know. But what was the thing which Nico- 
demus did not know? We reply, precisely what the 
clause says he did not know. But what was this? 
Simply, u whence it (the Spirit) comes and whither it goes" 
The whence and the whither, then, of the Spirit was all. 
But this is not the popular belief. The popular belief 
is, that the thing which Nicodemus did not know was, 
how the Spirit operates in regeneration. But the clause 
says nothing about how the Spirit operates in regenera- 
tion ; not even whether it operates at all or not ; posi- 
tively nothing about its exerting any supposed secret 
influence therein. Hence these are not the things of 
which the clause says JSTicodemus was ignorant. The 
whence and the whither of the Spirit, and no more, is 
what he did not know. 

But, because Nicodemus did not then know the 
whence and the whither of the Spirit, does it follow 
that we are now ignorant of the manner in which the 
Spirit operates in conversion ? Such conclusion has no 
dependence on such premise, and hence of course cannot 
follow from it. The fact that Mcodemus was ignorant 
of one thing is no reason why we should be supposed 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 113 

ignorant of a very different thing. Yet this is the popu- 
lar mode of reasoning from the clause. 

That what the clause means may be the better un- 
derstood, let us somewhat expand the whole passage to 
which it belongs by supposing the following train of 
thought to be passing through the mind of the Savior. 
The Spirit, ISTicodemus, speaks to men where it sees they 
will heed its teachings; and you hear its instructions, 
which you must receive in order to be enlightened by 
it ; but of the Spirit itself in other respects you are igno- 
rant. Tou know not whence it comes and whither it 
goes. I have told you what it does, which you may 
understand; but of the Spirit itself you must remain in 
other respects ignorant until I am glorified. Then it 
will be given ; when you will have no difficulty in un- 
derstanding what it is not proper I should at present 
make known to you. 

The popular interpretation of this clause is worthy of 
notice. It is this : — You, the human family, cannot com- 
prehend how the Spirit exerts its mysterious influences 
on the human heart in regeneration. It is as incom- 
prehensible to you as the operations of the wind. But 
all the Savior says is this: — " Whence it (the Spirit) 
comes and whither it goes, you, Nicodemus, know not." 
How singularly does the speculation contrast with the 
truth ! 

Finally, we come to the concluding clause of the 

verse: — "so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 

And first in regard to the particle rendered "so." The 

primary and usual meaning of this particle is " in this 

way" It occurs in the Greek New Testament upwards 
10* H 



114 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

of two hundred times, and is generally rendered so, in 
the sense of in this way. Now, a chief rule in translat- 
ing is this : — to render a term invariably by its primary 
and usual meaning where they agree, unless the sense posi- 
tively forbids it. In the present instance, therefore, since 
the sense does not forbid it, we are compelled to abide 
by the rule, and hence to render the particle in this 
way. But in rendering it thus, the clause to which it 
belongs becomes elliptical, as may be perceived thus : — 
In this way is every one that is born of the Spirit. 
The sense is here clearly incomplete, hence we invo- 
luntarily ask, how? In order to complete the sense 
we must supply the ellipsis. But here we come in 
contact with another rule, which says, Avoid an ellip- 
sis where the sense can be as well expressed without it. 
Here, then, by the force of one rule, we come in conflict 
with another; and, as both cannot stand, the question 
arises, Which must yield ? In all such cases the rule 
which respects expressing the sense is held to yield to 
the one which respects determining the sense, the lat- 
ter being necessary, the former merely discretionary. 
Hence we must abide by the rule which requires us to 
render the particle in this way, and supply the ellipsis. 
But in supplying an ellipsis we are not to act arbi- 
trarily. Indeed, we are no more at liberty to act arbi- 
trarily in supplying an ellipsis than we are in creating 
one. The omitted word must be such as occurs to the 
mind readily, and, when supplied, such as satisfies it by 
completing the sense in an easy, natural way. 

In the present instance we supply the ellipsis thus : — 
In this way is (born) every one that is born of the Spirit 



_i. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 115 

Instantly the mind seems to accept this as correct. It 
gives completeness to the sense, and leaves us asking no 
questions. It imparts to us a feeling of satisfaction 
such only as we feel when the truth flashes full on the 
mind. We conclude, then, that it is correct. 

Substituting, then, the word begotten, which is required 
by the sense, for the word born, the reasons for which 
we shall assign elsewhere, and the whole verse reads 
thus: — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear 
its voice, but you know not whence it comes and whither it 
goes : in this way is (begotten) every one that is begotten by 
the Spirit. How then is a person begotten by the Spirit ? 
By hearing what it says or being enlightened by its Truth. 
"Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth." 
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
ruptible, by the word of God." Is not the conclusion 
overwhelming ? 

With a few additional remarks we shall dismiss the 
passage. The clause, u you know not whence it comes 
and whither it goes," is to be limited to Nicodemus, or 
rather to the time preceding the descent of the Spirit 
on the day of Pentecost. For, since then, in no sense 
can it be said of Christians that they know not whence 
the Spirit comes and whither it goes. We possess infor- 
mation respecting it which Nicodemus did not possess, 
which enabled the Savior to say of him what cannot be 
truly said of us. 

In the outset of the present argument, we assumed 
that the verse in hand contains an explanation of the 
expression u born of the Spirit." In further confirmation 
of this, if further confirmation can be thought necessary. 



116 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

we once more request attention to the closing expres- 
sion of the verse. This expression does not contain a 
reference to the new birth generally, but only to so 
much of it as consists in being begotten by the Spirit. 
Hence it does not say, in this way is every one born that 
is born again; but, in this way is every one begotten that 
is begotten by the Spirit. Being begotten by the Spirit, 
then, is strictly what it explains. It states the mode in 
which this is done, — to wit, by hearing or believing what 
the Spirit says. And how easily and naturally does the 
whole verse develop itself into this conclusion! Each 
step in the investigation rests on the firmest basis; 
every position is determined by some simple and obvious 
rule in sacred criticism; and the conclusion accords 
strictly with the other conclusions already arrived at 
in this chapter from other portions of Holy Writ. 



SECTION XL 

Our tenth argument is, that conviction of the sinner, 
which is peculiarly the work of the Spirit, and which may 
be considered as but another name for conversion in the view 
we are now taking of it, can be effected in no way known 
to the human mind except by the Truth. 

As a partial basis for this argument we cite the follow- 
ing scriptures: — " Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, it 
is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not 
away the Comforter will not come to you: but if I 
depart I will send him to you. And when he is come he 
will reprove (convince, it should have been) the world of sin, 
and of righteousness, and of judgment" Again, "If ye 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 117 

love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the 
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that 
he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, 
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, 
neither knoweth him." 

From these scriptures it is clear, first, that to con- 
vince the world is the peculiar work of the Spirit. From 
this work, we may add, it has never been absent a 
moment from the day on which it descended to com- 
mence it, the day of Pentecost, to the present. Indeed, 
conviction seems to be as peculiarly the work of the 
Spirit as expiation was of the Son; nor can we any 
more conceive of the Spirit as now absent from its work 
than of the Son as absent when he accomplished his. 
And further, as the Son, though the author of redemp- 
tion, effects it through agents and other means appointed 
by him thereto, — the way which to him seems best, — so 
the Spirit, though the author of conviction, effects it, 
not as many ill-taught and superstitious people suppose, 
by an immediate contact of Spirit with spirit, but 
through the Truth, — the way which to it seems best. 

There are some curious illustrations in the Acts of the 
Apostles of the fact that conviction is the especial work 
of the Spirit, and also of that singular sentence, the 
Spirit breathes where it sees fit. We cite the following : — . 
"Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thy- 
self to this chariot." Again, "The Holy Spirit said, 
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto 
I have called them." And again, "Now, when they had 
gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and 
xoere forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia, 



118 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

after they were come to Mysia they essayed to go 
into Bithynia : but the Spirit suffered them not." 

From these extracts it seems evident, — 1st, that, in 
carrying on the work of conviction, the Spirit wrought 
only through the apostles and other ministers of the 
"Word whom it inspired ; 2d, that, if it had not the entire 
control of their labors in this work, it at least had the 
chief control of them; 3d, that the Spirit breathed, or 
made known the Truth, not unconditionally every- 
where, but only where it saw fit to make it known, 
— where, in other words, it saw that the Truth would 
be received. 

But it is clear, second, that the world — i.e. the un- 
converted part of it, or sinners — cannot receive the 
Spirit; that is, that the Spirit cannot enter into sin- 
ners ; for this is what is meant by receiving the Spirit : 
and yet it is clear that their conviction is to be effected 
by the Spirit. Since, then, the Spirit itself cannot enter 
into the unconverted, it must, in effecting their convic- 
tion, — which is a work in the inner man, — effect it by 
something which does enter within them. And what, 
we ask, can this be but the Truth ? 

But what is conviction ? A firm persuasion that some- 
thing said or conceived of is true. And this would make 
conviction in nothing distinguishable from belief. Nor 
can this be thought incorrect if we only bear in mind 
that the Apostle Paul, in defining belief in regard to the 
past or the unseen, defines it to be conviction, though un- 
fortunately conviction is not the word we have in the 
common version. Indeed, when we say we firmly be- 
lieve a thing to be true, — say that Christ arose from the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 119 

dead, — and we are convinced that it is true, it is impos- 
sible to distinguish, in respect to meaning, between the 
two forms of speech, or to show that they describe two 
different mental states. We conclude, then, that our 
view of conviction is correct. 

Now, in order to produce conviction, two things, and 
only two, are necessary, so far as the mere object and 
means of conviction are concerned, — to wit : the thing 
of which we are to be convinced, which must be ex- 
pressed intelligibly, or be conceived of, in the form of a 
proposition; and evidence in amount and kind sufficient 
to sustain it. These two things being present, and 
attended to on our part, conviction, unless deliberately 
resisted, follows by an immutable law of the human 
mind. Let, for example, the thing of which we are to 
be convinced be, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
the living God. For this truth, whether in the form of a 
proposition or merely in conception, we are absolutely 
indebted to the Spirit. For, however it may have been 
suggested by the Savior and confessed by the apostles, 
long since would it have perished from the memory of 
the world, but for the record of it which we owe to the 
Spirit. How true it is that none can say that Jesus is 
the Christ but by the Spirit ! But men could no more 
have believed this truth without the evidence on which 
it rests than have invented both the truth itself and its 
evidence. For, although within itself an absolute truth, 
still, to us it is a truth only as it is proved to be such. 
For this evidence again we are indebted solely to the 
Spirit. Here, now, the Spirit has furnished us not only 
the thing of which we are to be convinced, but the evi- 



120 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

clence in quantity and in kind on which it rests. Now, 
on our part, this thing and this evidence must be volun- 
tuarily attended to ; and, if so, conviction will as inevi- 
tably follow, unless deliberately resisted, as pain follows 
vice, or pleasure follows virtue. If conviction is not thus 
produced, then it is a dream. We care not what the 
thing may be of which we are to be convinced : convic- 
tion is the same. It may be the sublime truth that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; or the 
fact that he died for our sins ; or that he arose for our 
justification ; or that man by his sins has deeply grieved 
the Lord before whom he stands all guilty ; or it may be 
some duty, or some relation : in a word, it may be any 
truth, fact, relation, or duty, and, we repeat, conviction 
remains the same, and, in all cases, takes place in precisely 
the same way. 

Since, therefore, conviction depends on the Truth, 
proved to be such, and, as far as the human mind can see, 
on nothing else, and since conviction (in the view we 
are now taking of it,) and conversion are the same, it 
follows that conversion depends on the Truth, and on the 
Truth alone. 

SECTION XII. 

Our eleventh argument is, that there is no cause known 
to have contributed to the conversion of the three thousand 
on the day of Pentecost, except the Truth which they heard; 
and that it is hence unjust and unfair to infer the presence 
of any other. 

As a ground for this argument, we shall now proceed 
to submit a brief analysis of the case of conversion re* 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 121 

ferred to. The Savior had said to the disciples, in speak- 
ing of the Comforter, a KI depart I will send him to 
you; and when he is come he will reprove {convince) the 
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment/' 
We are now, therefore, to see how the Spirit did, when 
come, convince the world, by what means it did it, and, 
thus, how conversion is effected. 

The disciples, to the number of a hundred and twenty, 
the apostles included, had met in an upper room in the 
city of Jerusalem. The day was important, being one 
on which a great national festival was celebrated. The 
city was crowded with strangers. The Savior had 
taken his seat at the right hand of the Father, as Lord 
of all. He had received the Spirit, and on that day sent 
it forth. It entered the room where the disciples were 
met, accompanied by a sound as of a rushing mighty 
wind. It sat upon each of them in the form of separate 
tongues of flame. The symbol was appropriate. Upon 
a former occasion, when descending upon the Savior, 
the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, — that gentle 
bird of spring whose melancholy note and quiet man- 
ners made it a fit emblem of the Spirit when descend- 
ing upon the Prince of peace. But the apostles were 
now to go forth on a fiery mission, were now to engage 
in a fierce conflict, in which the tongue was to be the 
great offensive instrument, and the Truth the power. It 
was in fine taste, therefore, at the outset, to signify all 
this in tongues of flame. 

The hundred and twenty were all filled with the 

Spirit, and began to speak in different tongues as the 

Spirit gave them utterance. This being noised abroad, 
11 



122 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the people ran together and were greatly perplexed. 
Some ventured solutions, others wondered, others 
mocked. 

At this juncture the Apostle Peter arose and com- 
menced his speech, speaking as the Spirit moved 
him. Into the merits of this speech we enter not. 
Suffice it to say, it is remarkable for its simplicity, 
the bold individuality of its parts, the brevity and per- 
tinency of its proofs, its regularity and grand conclu- 
sion. The apostle closes thus: — " Therefore let all the 
house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made 
that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord 
and Christ." The effect is thus described: — "Now, 
when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, 
and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men 
and brethren, what shall we do ?" 

Let us now note the parties present, together with 
their relative positions. First, then, the audience was 
present, and giving attention. Will Mr. Jeter inform us 
why ? He maintains that God, by a " gracious, inward, 
efficacious influence of his Spirit," secures the attention 
of the sinner. Will he point us either to the passage 
or the fact, in the present case, which teaches it? Cer- 
tainly not. The report had brought the people toge- 
ther, and what they heard and saw secured their atten- 
tion. This explains the matter. 

But the Spirit was also present : and where ? In the 
audience ? Certainly not ; for the world cannot receive it 
It was present in the apostles, and through them speak- 
ing into the hearts of the people, and thus touching 
them into life. Hence, when the people heard, they 



REVIEW OF CAMP15ELL1SM EXAMINED. 123 

were pierced to the heart, or convinced. To what, now, 
is this conviction attributable ? To what the audience 
heard simply ? or to what they heard and to an " in- 
fluence distinct from and above the Truth" ? The latter 
is Mr. Jeter's position; the former, ours. 

The case may be stated thus : — We have an effect — 
conviction — to account for: and how shall we do it? 
Shall we ascribe it to the one cause, the Truth, known 
to be present and acting, and which, therefore, need 
not be proved ? or shall we ascribe it to the Truth, and 
to another cause, whose very existence as a cause is 
not known, and whose presence it is hence impossible 
to prove? Surely none can doubt. When they heard 
this they were pierced to the heart. Now, what, we ask, 
in reason's name, pierced them, save the Truth which 
they heard ? 

But Mr. Jeter thinks we should adopt a different con- 
clusion. We dissent from his opinion. We have not 
been fashioned after that easy model according to which 
blind credulity takes the place of sense, and supersti- 
tion the place of faith. We believe the effect was due 
to the one known cause, the Truth, which God put in 
requisition to produce it, and all beyond we gladly 
leave to that pliant credulity which can believe with- 
out evidence, and to that enviable penetration which 
can detect the presence of a cause where no cause 
exists. 



124 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



SECTION XIII. 

Our twelfth argument is, that the conversion of the 
eunuch justifies belief in no other influence as the cause 
of his conversion except the Truth which he heard. 

It is important to observe, that a case of conversion 
may be examined for two distinct objects, each of which 
has its own separate value in argument. 

1st. We may examine a case for the purpose of ascer- 
taining to what degree of minuteness it corresponds 
with a conclusion assumed to be already established. 
In this case the effect is merely corroborative ; though 
even corroboration may be of a nature to be decisive. 
If the correspondence is exact and minute, the conclu- 
sion may become irresistible ; it being taken for granted 
that no exact and very minute correspondence could 
exist between a false conclusion and a case of facts 
which must involve the very reverse of that conclusion. 

2d. We may examine a case, observing and collecting 
its facts, for the sake of tracing them to such conclu- 
sion as they lead to. In this case, if the conclusion 
arrived at, and the conclusion assumed to be already 
established, are the same, the presumption is that the 
conclusion assumed to be already established is true. 

The conclusion which we shall now assume to be 
established is that in conversion the Spirit operates 
through the Truth only. Now, what aid, whether we 
have one or the other of the preceding objects in view, 
does the case in hand lend to this conclusion? We 
shall see. 



REVIEW OX' CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 125 

The eunuch, on his way to Ethiopia, was reading the 
book of Isaiah. This the Spirit inspired the prophet to 
write; hence it is true. But Philip was passing, to 
whom the Spirit, which was in him, said, "Go near 
and join yourself to this chariot." He went, and, on 
approaching it, said to the eunuch, "Do you understand 
what you read?" "How can I," was the reply, "ex- 
cept some one should guide me?" Philip was invited 
to a seat in the chariot, and, on taking it, began at the 
same scripture and preached to the eunuch, Jesus. 

The Spirit, then, was present but in Philip, and not 
in the eunuch ; for the world cannot receive it : it had 
spoken but to Philip, and not to the eunuch. Now, 
however, it was speaking to the eunuch, but speaking 
only through Philip ; and so it continued till conviction 
was effected. All, then, that was said to the eunuch, 
the Spirit said, but said it through Philip ; all that the 
eunuch learned, he learned from the Spirit, but learned 
it through Philip; and all that the eunuch felt, the 
Spirit caused him to feel, but by what it said. And this 
is a case of conversion. 

First, then, to what conclusion does it lead? Clearly 
to the following: — 1. That the Spirit operated on the 
eunuch. 2. That it operated through the Truth. 
3. That it operated in no other way; since no other 
way is either named or hinted at. 

Second— but on inspection the case will be found to 
correspond exactly with the conclusions heretofore 
arrived at in this chapter. Hence we conclude that 
the proposition which rests jointly on the present case 
and those conclusions must be true. 



126 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

But where is the evidence that the Spirit exerted on 
the eunuch an " influence distinct from and above the 
Truth" ? In what fact, hint, or circumstance, in the 
case itself, shall we look for it ? That evidence does not 
exist. The persuasion that it does is a distempered 
dream. 

SECTION XIV. 

Our thirteenth argument is, that the Apostle Paul repre- 
sents himself as having begotten or converted the Corinthians 
by the gospel; and that, since the gospel in its ordinary ac- 
ceptation does not include an influence distinct from and 
above itself, therefore the gospel is the sole influence of con- 
version. 

The ground on which this argument rests is the 
following : — " Though you have ten thousand instructors 
in Christ, yet have you not many fathers; for in Christ 
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.' ' 

In examining different cases of conversion, since con- 
version is in all cases the same, the trait with which we 
should expect to be most struck would be their sub- 
stantial agreement amidst different circumstances. Ac- 
cordingly, it is curious to note that in every case of con- 
version, no matter what the surrounding circumstances 
may have been, the first thing done was the presenta- 
tion of the Truth; that this was presented by the Spirit 
through some inspired teacher and confirmed; that this 
Truth is then represented as being heard, believed, 
received, or rejected; and that then conversion ensued 
or not, just as the Truth was received or rejected. But 
in no case have we the slightest evidence— =not even a 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 127 

hint — that the Spirit was ever at work in any other way 
or by any other means. Is it not strange that the 
truth, if truth it is, should never have flashed out in a 
single case? The circumstance is more than suspicious. 

Now, what the word spoken was to the people then 
converted, the word written is to us of the present age. 
As it was then the sole influence of conversion, circum- 
stances providential and incidental excepted, so is it 
now. As the Spirit was then the author of what was 
said, and of the evidence thereof, and hence of the effect 
produced, so is it now the author of what is written, 
and of the evidence thereof, and hence of the effect 
which it produces. As the Spirit was then present 
where it spoke, so is it now present where it has 
written; and as what it then said was quick and power- 
ful, — in a word, spirit and life, — so now what it has 
written has without abatement the same subtle energy. 
And as then he who resisted the Truth resisted the 
Spirit, so is it now; but where is the evidence — in reason 
we ask where — that any soul either then or now has 
ever resisted the Spirit by resisting an " influence dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth" ? 

Let us suppose the gospel to be the sole, the unaided 
cause of conversion, — i.e. unaided by any influence above 
itself; and that it was the intention of an apostle, in 
speaking of a case of conversion which he had been 
chiefly instrumental in effecting, to represent this fact : 
in what language, if he were not speaking literally, 
would he speak? Would it not be in language like 
this? — Though you have many instructors in Christ, 
and may claim to have been quickened or converted 



128 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

by many influences, yet have you not many fathers, 
nor have you been converted by many influences; for 
in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 
The gospel then, or the Truth, we again conclude, is the 
influence of conversion. 



SECTION XV. 

Our fourteenth and last argument is, that the only 
known or determinate cause of Lydia's conversion was the 
Truth which she heard; and that this is hence the real cause 
of conversion. 

The case may be resolved into the question, How did 
the Lord open Lydia's heart ? This question answered, 
all else is simple. Now, as a physical opening is not 
contended for, this subject may be dismissed at once. 
And as to open the mind means to enlighten, so to open 
the heart, where it means any thing more, means to in- 
fluence to act. More than this the phrase, which is 
certainly metaphorical, cannot without violence be made 
to mean. Hence the phrase, " whose heart the Lord 
opened that she attended to the things spoken of Paul, " 
resolves itself into the more literal and more simple 
expression, — whom the Lord influenced to attend to 
what Paul said. This is clearly the meaning of the 
phrase ; at least, more than this its terms will not safely 
import. Now, the question is, by what means did the 
Lord influence Lydia to attend or to obey? That he 
did it is certain; and equally as certain is it that he 
influenced the Corinthians to obey, and the eunuch to 
obey; but the question is, by what means? Mr. Jeter 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 129 

thinks he influenced Lydia to obey by a " gracious, 
inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit." Doubtless 
the influence, whatever it was, was a very gracious one, 
for we can conceive of no other; quite inward, too, 
since it affected the woman's heart; very eflicacious, 
also, since it induced her to obey; and very certain that 
it was of the Spirit, but very uncertain whether it 
differed from the Truth, or was any thing more than 
the Truth. 

But on what ground does Mr. Jeter suppose the influ- 
ence to have been a special one? for this is clearly the 
force of his language. Is it because God is limited to a 
special influence ? If he so affirm, then we leave him 
to his whim ; and yet other ground he cannot name. 

Now, it is clear, — 1st, that the Spirit was present 
speaking to Lydia, — speaking through the apostle ; 2d, 
that she heard what it said; 3d, that there is an im- 
mense motive-power in the Truth; 4th, but not one 
particle of evidence that the Spirit was operating on 
Lydia in some other way than through the Truth, or 
exerting more power than is in the Truth. To what 
conclusion, then, are we forced? To the conclusion 
simply that the Lord influenced her to obey by the light 
and motives of the gospel. 

The expression " whose heart the Lord opened" can 
safely mean no more than this : — that the work was of 
the Lord. Certainly it does not assert the exertion of 
a special influence, neither does it necessarily imply it ; 
hence, there is no ground on which to infer it. It 
merely asserts a fact, leaving the mode of its occurrence 
wholly unexplained; and, in all such cases, it is cer- 



130 REVIEW OF CxlMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

tainly better to ascribe the fact to the causes known to 
be present and acting, than .to such as are purely ima- 
ginary. 

Here, now, we close the defence of our proposition, 
and, from all the facts, premises, and reasonings there- 
on, now before us, feel it to be overwhelmingly esta- 
blished, that in conversion the Spirit operates through the 
Truth only. If this conclusion is not true, then there is 
neither meaning in fact, nor force in argument. In 
harmony with«the consciousness, the volitions, and the 
instincts of the human heart, asserted and implied in 
the clearest language of Holy Writ, corroborated by the 
simplest and most transparent reasonings, can it yet be 
false? It is at variance with no incident in the life of 
the Savior, with none in the history of the apostles. In 
order to establish it the capacity of no word has been 
overtaxed, no clause forced to bear a reluctant testi- 
mony, no sentence unnaturally construed, nor any verse 
interpreted otherwise than in harmony with the long- 
established and simplest laws of human speech. We 
therefore commit it to the world, in the profound belief 
that all who will sincerely and thoroughly examine the 
grounds on which it rests will pronounce it true, cer- 
tainly true. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 131 



CHAPTEE IV. 

OBJECTIONS OF MR. JETER TO HE PRECEDING DOCTRINE 
C0NSID1 IED. 

SECTION I. 

We now proceed to consider the objections to the doc- 
trine of the preceding chapter. But before doing this 
we think it important to have the precise point stated 
against which these objections are urged. 

The question of difference between Mr. Jeter and us 
is strictly a question of fact, but a question involving 
two facts. We both agree that in conversion the Spirit 
operates : what, then, is the difference between us ? It 
is the difference between accomplishing a given result 
by one influence of an agent acting uniformly in one way, 
and by two influences of the same agent, acting, one uni- 
formly in one way, the other indifferently in two ways. 
We maintain that conversion is effected uniformly in one 
way, — namely, through the Truth. To this limitation 
Mr. Jeter objects, and maintains that in conversion the 
Spirit operates not only through the Truth, but without 
it ) and not only by all the power in the Truth, but also 
by another influence distinct from and above it. When, 
then, he objects to our doctrine, it is evident that he 
objects, not to what we do teach, but in reality to what we 
do not teach. Tor, so far as we do teach, he agrees with 
us; but he objects to our teaching only so far. In other 



132 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

words, when we deny that the Spirit operates in con- 
version except through the Truth, or exerts therein any 
influence above the Truth, he affirms that we deny 
falsely. 

When, then, he urges objections against our teaching, 
we shall expect him to urge them against the single 
point now named, — to wit: our limitation. We shall 
expect him to show that this limitation is wrong, — not 
directly, certainly, but indirectly, — by showing that the 
Spirit does, at least in some cases, operate in conversion 
without the Truth; and that in all cases it exerts an in- 
fluence distinct from and above it. With these prelimi- 
naries we shall now introduce Mr. Jeter's first objection, 
which he thus states : — 

Objection 1. "Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion over- 
looks, or at least underestimates, the inveteracy of human 
depravity." 

It does not, then, it seems, overlook depravity, but 
only the inveteracy of it. It admits the existence of the 
thing, but denies that it exists in so intense a form as 
that for which Mr. Jeter contends. This is precisely the 
difference between him and us. He contends not merely 
that depravity exists, but that it exists in such a form or 
to such a degree that the sinner cannot be converted 
simply by the Truth ; but that the Spirit must add to 
this — or exert without it — an influence distinct from and 
above it, and acting with immeasurably greater vital 
force. 

Now, as not depravity, but this peculiar degree of it, is 
at the very bottom of Mr. Jeter's whole system of 
spiritual influence, and, as we conceive* the sole argu- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 133 

ment which he can urge in its defence, he should have 
been at great pains to establish it, if possible, even be- 
yond a cavil. But, instead of this, he attempts to esta- 
blish the existence of depravity simply, — a thing which 
is not in dispute. For the question between him and us 
is not whether depravity exists, but whether it exists to 
the degree contended for by him. The very thing which 
we utterly deny is, that any degree or form of depravity 
exists in the human heart which renders the sinner in- 
capable of conversion by the Truth. Why, now, did he 
not attempt to establish this intense form or peculiar 
degree of depravity ? To such a task he knew himself 
unequal. But a difficulty of this nature never strands 
Mr. Jeter. "What he felt a conscious inability to prove, 
he felt a conscious ability to assume j and, accordingly, 
having assumed the existence of a form or degree of de- 
pravity which has no existence, he bases on this as- 
sumption an objection to Mr. Campbell's theory of con- 
version. What, now, does this objection amount to? 
Simply to this : — that Mr. Campbell's theory overlooks 
Mr. Jeter's assumption, — a small matter, truly! It is 
not for Mr. Campbell to offset one assumption by an- 
other, but to abide by the Truth, and offset every as- 
sumption by a simple denial of its truth, until its truth 
is proved. 

There are two forms of depravity in the existence of 
which we do not believe : — one, a form which makes it 
necessary to regenerate infants in order to their salva- 
tion ; the other, a form which renders an influence dis- 
tinct from and above the Truth necessary to conversion. 
And, should it be said that depravity exists in these two 

12 



134 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

forms only, then we are prepared to deny the existence 
of the whole thing. 

We agree to the mournful truth that man is depraved, 
i.e. that his reason has been greatly clouded by the fall, 
that his tastes and feelings have been perverted, and 
that he no longer reflects the image — the moral image 
— of his great Original as he once reflected it; that he 
now reflects it only as a broken mirror reflects the 
image of the face before it. The three respects in which 
man has chiefly suffered by the fall, we conceive to be 
his subjection to mortality, his loss of the moral imago 
of a kind Creator, and his greater exposedness to temp- 
tation and sin. In some of these respects, certainly, his 
misfortunes may be, in great part, even in this life, re- 
paired by the Eemedial System; but the consummation 
will not be until he is quickened from the dead. But, as 
to infants, we believe that all they lost in Adam, even 
every whit, they gain in Christ without one vestige of 
influence from the Spirit, save quickening them from 
the grave. Neither in reason nor in revelation is there 
one trace of evidence that an infant was ever yet, from 
conception up, the subject of one ray of spiritual influ- 
ence. The whole conception is a pure delusion. 

We agree, further, that all (infants included) are so 
frail or weak that, after a certain period of life, they 
not only sin, but that they are even inclined to sin. 
But this inclination we believe to be owing, at first at 
least, rather to the force of temptation, and the feeble- 
ness of the resistance offered by an immature resisting 
will and untaught judgment, than to any thing in the 
form of an innate, inherited depravity so inveterate 






REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 135 

that resistance becomes nearly, if not quite, impossible. 
True, we all inherit that frail nature which renders us 
so extremely susceptible of temptation. Nay, we will 
even grant that we inherit it in an aggravated form, 
which is the only form in which we do inherit it. But 
we inherit no form of depravity so inveterate as to 
affect the perfect freedom of the will, close the heart 
against the Truth, or render man insusceptible of being 
moved by motives ; in a word, no form which renders 
him incapable of being converted by the simple, un- 
aided light and force of divine Truth. 

But this frailty or weakness is not sin : it is only a 
condition without which there had been no sin. Nor 
is it a consequence of Adam's sin. Adam possessed it 
before he sinned, else he had not sinned; hence, it is 
not a consequence of his sin. It is, however, a condition 
of sin, since without it Adam could not have sinned ; 
but it is only a condition. Nor, perhaps, will facts war- 
rant the conclusion that this frailty is, even in our case, 
greatly increased. For greater weakness in sinning 
was never displayed than by Adam. He yielded to the 
first temptation ever presented to him, without, so far 
as we know, offering even the slightest resistance. No 
one of his descendants ever did more. 

But what has Mr. Jeter to urge in defence of this 
inveterate form of depravity? The following extract 
contains his plea : — 

" The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of 
man's moral corruption in gloomy colors. He is utterly 
depraved, — fleshly, sensual, and impure. 'That which 
is born of the flesh is flesh :' John iii. 6. He is without 



136 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth, — 
1 dead in trespasses and sins :' Eph. ii. 1. He is alien- 
ated from God, and opposed to his law, and, conse- 
quently, to truth and righteousness. < Because the 
carnal mind is enmity against God : for it is not subject 
to the law of God, neither indeed can be :' Eom. viii. 7. 
This depravity pervades and controls the whole man, — 
blinding the mind, perverting the affections, stupefying 
the conscience, making rebellious and obstinate the will, 
and prostituting the members of the body as the instru- 
ments of sin. And this moral corruption of human 
nature is universal. 'For all have sinned and come 
short of the glory of God :' Eom. iii. 23." 

There is here an obvious effort to overstrain the 
truth, which within itself is bad enough without any 
heightening. But all this overcoloring, which is no- 
thing else than a species of falsehood, is designed merely 
to create the impression that there is a necessity for 
some very peculiar spiritual influence in conversion. 
But it is proper to descend to particulars. 

1st. " He [man] is utterly depraved, — fleshly, sensual, 
and impure. * That which is born of the flesh is flesh :' 
John iii. 6." 

Now, we freely grant that that which is born of the 
flesh is flesh ; but that flesh and utter depravity mean the 
same thing, or represent the same idea, is something 
we do not believe. To assume that they do is to as- 
sume the very question in dispute. That question is 
not whether that which is born of the flesh is flesh, nor 
even whether it is fleshly; but whether flesh means 
utter depravity, or implies a degree of it so inveterate 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 137 

that the sinner cannot be converted without a " super- 
natural agency. " We repeat, there is no question be- 
tween Mr. Jeter and us but a question of degree. He 
asserts not merely that man is depraved, but that he is 
utterly depraved. "We deny that the term utterly is ap- 
plicable : he affirms it. How, now, does he undertake 
to make his affirmation good? By assuming, in the 
first place, that the word flesh means fleshly ; and, in 
the second, that to be fleshly is to be utterly depraved. 
But we deny the truth of his assumption in the first 
place and in the second. The passage does not say, 
that which is born of the flesh is fleshly, neither is this 
its meaning, but, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. 
Neither does the word "flesh" imply utter depravity. 

2d. "He [man] is without spiritual life, without holi- 
ness, without moral worth, — 'dead in trespasses and 
sins :' Eph. ii. 1." 

Now, we admit that man, unregenerate, is without 

spiritual life, without holiness, but not quite that he is 

without moral worth ; or, rather, we admit that man is 

unregenerate. But this is not the question at issue, 

neither does it imply it. Is a man who is admitted to 

be without spiritual life to be therefore deemed utterly 

depraved? This is the question. If to be destitute of 

spiritual life were a consequence of utter depravity, or 

necessarily implied it, then of course the existence of 

that would prove the reality of this. But, before such 

destitution can be so used, it must be shown to be such 

a consequence or to carry such necessary implication. 

But this is what Mr. Jeter has not attempted. The 

absence of one thing can never be used to prove the 
12* 



188 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

presence of another, unless the one cannot be absent 
without the other being present. Hence, the absence 
of spiritual life can never be used to prove the presence 
of utter depravity, unless that could not be absent 
without this being present. Nor would it be sufficient, 
to establish Mr. Jeter's conclusion, to show that the ab- 
sence of spiritual life implies the presence of depravity. 
It must be shown that it implies utter depravity, or a 
form of it so inveterate that conversion is impossible 
without a "supernatural agency" For, as before re- 
marked, we admit that the sinner is depraved, but 
still deny that any power besides the Truth is neces- 
sary to his conversion. 

The expression "dead in trespasses and sins," with 
which Mr. Jeter terminates the preceding extract, and 
upon which he rests its truth, proves nothing in his 
favor. If an absolute death were meant, then perhaps 
it might ; but such is not the case. A man absolutely 
dead is as incapable of sinning as he is of being righteous, 
whether the death be that of the body or that of the 
spirit. Yet the persons alluded to were dead in sins, — 
that is, the sins which they were actually committing 
every day. 

Indeed, the very power to sin involves a virtual re- 
futation of one of Mr. Jeter's chief objections to our 
theory of conversion, — to wit, the impotency of motives 
on the sinner's will. The power to sin is not the mere 
physical power to sin, but the moral power. It is the 
power to sin or not just as we choose. He who cannot 
choose between sinning and not sinning cannot sin. 
And the power to choose implies the power to choose 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 139 

for reasons, and this, of course, that he who chooses is 
susceptible of being determined by motives. This is all 
we contend for ; but, in contending for this, it must be 
apparent that we contend not merely that the sinner 
can be determined by motives in some cases, but that 
he can be in all cases, and hence, of course, in that of 
conversion. 

In the expression "dead in trespasses and sins," the 
word dead is evidently employed not in an absolute, but 
in a relative, sense. A sinner, though dead in sins, is 
not absolutely dead, but only dead to righteousness : 
just as a righteous man, though dead in a sense, is not 
absolutely dead, but only dead to sin. And as the 
righteous man, though dead to sin, is not so far dead 
that he cannot be induced, by the force of temptation, 
to sin again, so the sinner, though dead to righteous- 
ness, is not so far dead that he cannot be induced, by 
the force of truth and motives, to mend his life : only 
there is this difference, — that, being more strongly in- 
clined to sin than to righteousness, we need to be acted 
upon by more powerful motives in the one case than in 
the other. What now of utter depravity is deducible 
from the expression "dead in trespasses and sins"? 
Clearly none. 

3d. "He [man] is alienated from God, and opposed to 
his law, and, consequently, to truth and righteousness. 
< Because the carnal mind is enmity against God : for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be :' 
Eom. viii. 7." 

The carnal mind — or, emphatically, the mind of the flesh, 
which is here said to be enmity to God — is something 



i 



140 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which, in this life, is never subject to the will of God; 
indeed, it cannot be. No power can tame it. Hence it 
is as lawless in the saint as in the sinner. There is this 
difference : — the saint, by the Spirit, holds it in check; 
but the sinner is governed by it. Both can control it 
if they will, at least to a great extent ; but neither can 
subdue it completely. The determination to control it, 
the effort to do so, and the partial success, make the 
difference between the Christian and the sinner. 

But, Mr. Jeter will say, does not this prove that there 
is a work to be done in man which cannot be accom- 
plished by the Truth ? Certainly not. Indeed, it proves 
nothing about a work to be done in man, but rather that 
there is a work which cannot be done in him. It rather 
proves that there is a principle in him which cannot be 
subdued at all, cannot be subjected to the law of God, 
either b/ the Truth or by an influence distinct from and 
above it. It still leaves the question of his conversion 
by the Truth intact ; for, even after his conversion, this 
principle remains the same, except that it is kept in 
abeyance. 

Having thus complimented Mr. Jeter's first objection 
far beyond what any person except himself will think 
it merits, we shall here dismiss it. 



SECTION II. 

Objection 2. " It [Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion] 
is oblivious of the chief difficulty in conversion" 

Now, all must admit that the chief difficulty in con- 
version is a serious one, and that any theory which 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 141 

overlooks it must be extremely defective. But m what 
consists this chief difficulty ? We shall let the follow- 
ing language of Mr. Jeter explain : — 

"Mr. Campbell maintains that 'the arguments which 
are written in the New Testament' must be 'under- 
stood,' in order to exert their influence on the human 
mind. (Christianity Kestored, p. 350.) To understand 
these arguments requires attention, candor, and spiritual 
discernment. Men attend readily to what they delight 
in, and believe easily what is congenial with their tastes; 
but the 'natural man/ the unrenewed, sinful man, has 
a deep-rooted aversion to divine Truth. This aversion 
is an element and a proof of his depravity. He may 
hear or read the arguments contained in the Scriptures, 
through curiosity, politeness, or a captious spirit; but 
to expect of him a candid, serious, docile, and obedient 
attention to them is to expect to gather grapes of 
thorns or figs of thistles." 

The " chief difficulty," then, it seems, in conversion, is 
to understand the " arguments" of the New Testament; 
and of this " chief difficulty" Mr. Campbell's theory 
is " oblivious:" at least such is the case if we are to 
credit the romancing of Mr. Jeter. 

Now, three things, and only three, say all sensible and 
sober-minded men, (and the Bible says not to the con- 
trary,) are necessary to understand an argument: — 
1st, that it shall be within itself intelligible; 2d, that we 
possess the ability to understand it; 3d, that we give it 
the requisite attention. Mr. Jeter does not pretend that 
the arguments of the New Testament are not intelligible, 
nor that we have not the ability to understand them. 



142 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

"What, then, lack we yet? " Attention, candor, and spi- 
ritual discernment/' it would seem. First, then, it re- 
quires attention. Granted. Second, it requires candor. 
This is not true. If an argument be intelligible within 
itself, and a man possess the ability to understand it, 
and give it the requisite attention, understand it he will 
though he possess not one particle of candor. Without 
candor he may not acknowledge that he understands it; 
or, acknowledging it, he may not yield to it : but these 
are different matters altogether. Third, it requires 
"spiritual discernment" It requires common sense, and 
nothing more. WTiat Mr. Jeter means by u spiritual dis- 
cernment" he has not informed us; and, as we cannot 
conjecture, we shall pass the matter without further 
notice. 

But how shall we secure the sinner's attention? For 
clearly, according to Mr. Jeter, this is the chief difficulty 
in the way of his understanding the Truth ; and, indeed, 
according to our " scheme," if we are to believe him, it 
would seem insuperable. In the first place, we shall 
frankly grant that our " scheme" makes no provision to 
secure the attention of many of the human family. We 
mention the following classes : — 1. Such as will not come 
to Christ that they might have life. 2. Such as hate the 
light and will not come to it. 3. Such as reject the coun- 
sel of God against themselves. 4. Such as judge them- 
selves unworthy of eternal life. 5. Such as close their 
ears and shut their eyes, lest they should see and hear 
and be converted. 6. Such as will not attend without a 
supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. For securing the 
attention of these classes, we are free to confess, our 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 143 

"scheme" makes little provision; and we shall only add, 
the gospel makes none. No, gentle reader; it is Mr 
Jeter's "scheme" that makes provision for securing the 
attention and achieving the salvation of all these classes ! 
Has it not boundless claims on your charity? 

But we have not yet answered the question, How shall 
we secure the sinner's attention ? We reply, Precisely as 
did Christ and his apostles : — by presenting to his mind, 
as supremely worthy of his attention, immortality and 
eternal life; and by showing him that these lie com- 
pletely within his reach on condition that he submit to 
the Savior. If neither these nor the terrors of the 
Lord move him, the wrath of God rests on him, and he 
is lost. Neither reason nor revelation sanctions any 
other mode of securing the sinner's attention. 



SECTION III. 

Objection 3. " Suppose this great difficulty obviated, 
the sinner's attention arrested, and Truth brought clearly 
before his mind : would knowledge of divine Truth, without 
the special influence of the Spirit, secure his conversion?" 

To which, of course, the answer is, it would not. Now, 
we reply, if divine Truth, when known or understood, 
effects not the conversion of the sinner, then his con- 
version is provided for by no system of religion which 
is divine. At least, if the Christian religion has made 
such provision, the fact has never been discovered. 
Against this position, so strong because so true, no argu- 
ment worthy of the name has ever yet been made. 
True, a thousand feeble sallies, such as those we are now 



144 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

considering, have been made against it; but as yet it 
has sustained no injury. It has its confirmation in the 
whole history of God's dealings with the human family, 
and finds its sanction in the silent sense of the human 
soul. 

But, after propounding the preceding objection in the 
form of an inquiry, Mr. Jeter adds, "If ignorance is the 
only evil with which the gospel has to contend, then, 
obviously, the illumination of the mind is all that is 
necessary for its removal. But ignorance, though it 
may be in itself criminal, is rather the effect than the 
cause of man's depravity. There is a corrupt disposi- 
tion which blinds the understanding. 'This is the con- 
demnation, that light is come into the world, and men 
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds 
were evil :' John iii. 19. The love of darkness — which 
signifies ignorance or error — is the very root of man's 
depravity. This love implies an aversion to light, truth, 
and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance 
of divine things in the world." 

The love of ignorance, then, is the very root of man's 
depravity, — a love which implies aversion to light, truth ; 
and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance 
of divine things in the world. These are certainly fear- 
ful results. But are they results of man's depravity? 
We shall concede for the present that they are, and of 
that inveterate form of it for which Mr. Jeter contends. 
Now, is man the author of this form of depravity? The 
present generation at least is not, since it is inherited. 
Has he the power to modify its intensity or control it as 
a cause? Of course he has not. Is he, then, responsible 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 145 

for his love of darkness, his aversion to light, truth, 
and holiness, and his ignorance of divine things ? It is 
impossible. Indeed, concede the existence of this form 
of depravity, and these results become harmless as the 
sigh of the wind. And this is a legitimate result from 
Mr. Jeter's position. Deny it as he will, or explain it as 
he may, still it follows. Nor, indeed, is this all. The 
real conclusion from his position is, that man is the mere 
creature of necessity, with no more power to avoid being 
what he is, or doing what he does, than a stone at rest 
has to put itself in motion. We advocate no " scheme" 
of conversion certainly which provides a remedy for a 
case like this, alike disgraceful to the Author of man 
and destructive of human accountability. 

But will Mr. Jeter say that these, though results of 
depravity, are still to be regarded as sins ? If so, then 
they happened by the sanction of the human will. Man 
might have prevented them, but did not, — not because 
he could not, but because he would not. All the diffi- 
culty this view of the case presents, we accept, and for 
it (in the view we take of conversion) make as complete 
provision as can be made. 

We admit certainly that, in the presentation of the 
Truth, other and serious obstacles besides ignorance 
have to be encountered. Nay, more: we admit that 
many have to be encountered of a nature so serious that 
the view we take of conversion makes no provision what- 
ever to overcome them, and that hence many of the 
human family will be lost. Does Mr. Jeter's " scheme" make 
provision to overcome them all? There is something ex- 
ceedingly perverse in his mode of treating our view of 
13 K 



146 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

conversion. He treats it as if faulty because it makes 
not provision to overcome every conceivable obstacle in 
the way of conversion ; and yet he presents a no more 
feasible plan. Does the Christian religion, we ask, con- 
template the removal of all obstacles to conversion, and 
hence the conversion of all ? 

But we do maintain that every removable obstacle in 
the way of conversion not only may be made to yield, 
but that it actually does yield, when it yields at all, to 
the Truth, and to the Truth alone. The inherent, bril- 
liant light of the Truth, its searching heat and power, 
no obstacle can withstand, save the voluntary and 
deliberate resistance of man. And against this resist- 
ance no provision can be made. 



SECTION IV. 

Objection 4. "The theory under discussion is contradicted 
by numerous well-authenticated facts" 

In proof of which Mr. Jeter presents first this "fact:" 
— "If all the converting power of the Spirit is in the 
arguments addressed by him in words to the mind, then 
it follows that every minister of the word must be suc- 
cessful in converting souls to Christ in proportion to 
the distinctness with which he presents the arguments 
of the Spirit to the minds of his hearers. The same 
measure of power must, under similar circumstances, 
produce similar results. But does this conclusion agree 
with the experience and observation of Christian minis- 
ters?" 

We reply, if the power be uniform, and the circum- 



« 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 147 

stances precisely similar, then the results will be so too. 
Now, we maintain that tho converting power is in the 
Truth, and, hence, that the power is uniform. But are 
the circumstances precisely similar? Mr. Jeter knew that 
they are not, and yet he has the front to put the case as 
against us. But are the circumstances so far similar as 
to justify the expectation of even nearly-similar results ? 
They are not. But, on the contrary, they are so very 
dissimilar as to justify the expectation of the most dis- 
similar results. This is the conclusion which agrees 
with the experience and observation of Christian 
ministers. 

Audiences vary in ways which are almost infinite; 
each one of which will serve to prevent a uniform result 
from preaching. No two can be found commanding 
precisely the same amount of intellect; and then in point 
of cultivation they differ most widely. These two cir- 
cumstances of themselves are enough to account for 
the most dissimilar results. But, in addition to these, 
prejudices innumerable, and as various as numerous, 
have to be encountered. The resistance met with by 
the Truth from all these sources is such as to cause us 
rather to wonder that the results are so nearly uniform 
as they are than to expect them to be completely so. 

But, in further proof of his objection, Mr. Jeter pre- 
sents, second, this "fact:" — "But I need not appeal in 
this argument to questionable evidence. Christ was an 
unrivalled preacher of the gospel. Mark i . 1 : * Never man 
spake as he did/ .... But what was the result of his 
ministry? It was unsuccessful: — not wholly so; — but it 
produced no such results as from his pre-eminent qualifi- 



148 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

cations might have been expected; no great moral revo- 
lution, and no extensive revival of true religion." 

Christ's ministry, then, was unsuccessful; only it was 
not wholly so. Be it so, then. But was it unsuccessful 
because of any want of power in the Truth ? If so, Mr. 
Jeter has not shown it. No. It was unsuccessful, as 
far as it was so at all, because of the deliberate resistance 
offered to the Truth by the Jews. This is the reason why 
it was unsuccessful. 

Upon various occasions and in different language did 
the Savior account for his lack of success. Now, to 
what causes did he attribute it? Among others, we 
mention the following : — 

1. "This people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, 
lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and 
hear with their ears, and should understand with their 
heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." 

2. "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 
me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his 
writings, how shall ye believe my words V* 

3. "How can yc believe, who receive honor one of 
another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God 
only?" 

4. "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life." 
But, among all the causes assigned by the Savior, 

did he ever once mention a want of power in the Truth f 
Whether then is it safer to ascribe his want of success 
to the causes which he himself mentions, or to such as 
he never even once alludes to? 

But how does Mr. Jeter account for the Savior's want 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 149 

of success? "The converting power of the Spirit/' is his 
own language, "was not present, — was withheld in wisdom 
and righteous judgment" We blush for the pen that, 
drew this libel upon the divine character. In charity 
let us hope its author penned it in haste, under the in- 
fluence of some dreadful pressure, without stopping to 
reflect on his deed. The converting power of the Spirit 
was withheld, hence conversion was impossible; and yet 
the Savior said to the multitude, "Ye will not come to 
me that ye might have life," when he perfectly knew 
that they came not, not because they would not, but 
because they could not! The converting power of the 
Spirit was withheld, hence conversion could not be; and 
yet the unconverted were, by the high decree of heaven, 
doomed to perdition for refusing to be what they could 
not be! What is this but to tender to man a religion 
which he cannot accept, and then to damn him for re- 
jecting it? And all this is coolly charged to the account 
of "wisdom and righteous judgment" ! 



SECTION V. 

Objection 5. "Mr. Campbell's theory of the Spirifs in- 
fluence is incompatible with prayer for the conversion of 
sinners." 

1. Has God but one way in which he can answer prayer 
for the conversion of sinners, — to wit, through an in- 
fluence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth? If 
not, then the objection is void. Mr. Campbell's theory 
is certainly incompatible with prayer for the conversion 
of sinners through a "supernatural agency," but not with 

13* 



150 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

prayer for their conversion in any way in which con- 
version ever happens. 

2. Mr. Jeter is profoundly ignorant of the manner in 
which our heavenly Father answers, where he does so 
at all, the prayers of his children. We know not what 
we should pray for as we ought, and surely much less 
the manner in which these prayers are replied to. It is 
enough for us to know that " prayer for all men" has 
been made our duty. Hence we pray for them, not 
because it happens to be compatible with some theory, 
however wise, but because God has made it our duty to 
do so. All beyond a conscientious discharge of our duty 
we leave with Him who works all things after the coun- 
sel of his will. That he does, in the way which to him 
seems best, answer or not these prayers as they happen 
to accord or not with his gracious plans and to be for 
the good of his erring children, we profoundly believe. 
When, now, Mr. Jeter undertakes to set Mr. Campbell's 
" theory of the Spirit's influence" aside, after having so 
signally failed to do so in other ways, by an objection 
based on his profound ignorance of the manner in which 
God answers prayer, he compliments neither his head 
nor his heart. 

3. There is no duty upon the propriety and necessity 
of which Christian men are more cordially agreed, than 
that of frequent fervent prayer for the conversion of 
sinners. Any system of religion which should ignore 
it would be justly exposed to the derision of all good 
men. Mr. Jeter knew, and admits, (reluctantly, we 
fear,) that Mr. Campbell and his brethren believe in 
and practise this duty. And yet he wished to expose 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 151 

us as a denomination to the odium which he knew could 
attach to a people only who repudiate the duty; and 
this he sought to do by an effort to make it appear 
that our "theory" of spiritual influence is "incompati- 
ble" with prayer for the conversion of sinners. There 
is not a more unmanly thing in his book, numerous as 
such things are, than the preceding objection. But, in 
a work written to insult and not to refute, we could ex- 
pect nothing better. 

SECTION VI. 

Objection 6. "Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion is in- 
consistent with the introduction of the millennium." 

In support of this objection, Mr. Jeter has written 
some seven pages; and yet in not one line of the seven 
has he furnished a particle of evidence that his objection 
states the truth. It is an objection of a piece with the 
one immediately preceding it, — strictly, an objection 
based on his ignorance. It amounts to this : — Mr. Camp- 
bell's theory of conversion is inconsistent with some- 
thing of which little or nothing is known ! Mr. Jeter 
does not know in what the millennium will consist, and 
certainly not how it is to be introduced. In regard to 
the former point, the Scriptures merely state the fact 
that there will be a millennium, with no full description 
certainly of what it will consist in ; and in regard to the 
latter, if they are not wholly silent, yet are they silent, 
it appears to us, in regard to its being introduced by 
merely moral causes. It will not be thought disrespect- 
ful in us to dissent from Mr. Campbell in regard to a 
matter touching which he does not claim to be exempt 



152 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

from liability to err. We cannot therefore agree that 
Mr. Jeter has furnished the true view of the millennium 
in the short extract which he makes from Mr. Camp- 
bell's writings to " define what he means" by the term. 
And still less can we concede to him the right to base 
an objection to our theory of conversion on a piece of 
information which he does not happen to possess. 

But it is proper to I ear Mr. Jeter's account of the 
manner in which the millennium is to be introduced. 
"It is/' he observes, "most manifest that the millennium 
cannot shed its blessings on the world without some 
new agency or influence, or some great increase of 
Existing influences. We need expect no new revelations 
for our instruction, no new powers to be imparted to 
the human mind, and no new means of spreading the 
gospel and enlisting attention to it. How then is the 
millennium to be introduced ? By an increased efficiency 
of the divine word." 

The millennium, then, is to shed its blessings on the 
world by an increased efficiency of the divine word. Now, 
a more perfect conceit never haunted the brain of a 
Chaldean astrologer. But still, conceit as it is, it serves 
the purpose of a point on which to poise an objection 
against our view of conversion. Had Mr. Jeter stated 
that the millennium is to be introduced by magnetism 
or submarine telegraphs, he would, for any thing he 
knows, have come quite as near the truth. 

When he states that the millennium is to be intro- 
duced by an increased efficiency of the divine word, he 
states simply the case of a miracle, and then on this 
bases an objection to our theory of conversion, because 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 153 

it does not provide for the accomplishment of an event 
by ordinary means which, by his own showing, is to result 
from a miraculous cause ! 

Again, the objection obviously assumes that the 
millennium is to be introduced by conversion. But this 
we deny : hence, since it is not granted, neither proved, 
no objection can rest on it. If Mr. Jeter would make 
out his case, let him first show from the Bible that the 
millennium is to be introduced by conversion, and then, 
from any source, that our theory makes no provision 
therefor. Then we should have an objection indeed. 
But until then we are compelled to pronounce his pre- 
sent objection sheer nonserse. 



SECTION VII. 

Objection 7. " The assumption under consideration" 
(that the Spirit operates in conversion through the 
Truth only) "is incompatible with the salvation of infants, 
They enter into the world, as Mr. Campbell admits, 
with depraved hearts. Dying before they attain to 
years of intelligence, they must enter heaven with their 
moral natures unchanged, which is impossible; they 
must be renovated by death, which is a mere figment; 
they must be renewed by the Holy Spirit without the 
word, the possibility of which Mr. Campbell cannot 
conceive; or they must be lost. I do not charge him 
with admitting this consequence; but it appears to be 
logically deduced from the position which he assumes, 
and all his ingenuity has not enabled him to escape 
from it." 



154 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

As a general rule, there is about as much connection 
between Mr. Jeter's premises and his conclusions as 
between a cubic inch and the milky way; but in the 
present instance he seems to have stumbled upon some- 
thing a little better. We do not hesitate to pronounce 
this the best argument, bad as it is, in his book. For 
that reason we have transcribed it entire. 

How, now, must not all mothers be scandalized by 
the naughty doctrine which leads to such a conclusion ! 
And Mr. Campbell, it seems, with all his ingenuity, is 
unable to escape it. Alas, poor man ! What now must 
be done ? If we admit Mr. Jeter's premises, and if his 
argument is all valid, then are we forced to accept his 
conclusion. But — alas for his argument ! — a single pass 
at it proves fatal. Mr. Campbell does not admit that in- 
fants are depraved in any sense which makes it necessary to 
regenerate them, either with or without the word, in order to 
their salvation. We regret to be compelled thus to spoil 
the best argument in Mr. Jeter's book; but we are not 
permitted to spare it. When he puts his own false posi- 
tion in Mr. Campbell's mouth, he must not expect to 
deduce from it conclusions which will render any one 
ridiculous but himself. 

SECTION VIII. 

Objection 8. "Mr. Campbell's assumption' 9 (the Spirit's 
operating through the Truth only) "is wholly at war 
with the Scripture doctrine of Satanic influence." Satan and 
other evil spirits are represented in the Bible as exert- 
ing a mighty moral influence for the destruction of men. 
They tempt, deceive, enslave, and degrade mankind. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 155 

Satan is a mighty prince, and at the head of a great, 
spreading empire. But how do the evil spirits exert an 
influence over the minds of men ? By arguments 01 
motives addressed to them by words oral or written ? 
Certainly not: but by a direct, internal, and efficient 
influence." 

1. We deny utterly that Satan exerts any direct in- 
fluence on the human mind. We do not say he cannot 
do it, for we know not the limit of his awful power. 
We deny that he does it. The question is a question of 
fact, which should not have been assumed, as it has 
been, but proved, or not made the basis of an objection. 
It is a sheer fiction invented for a special purpose. 

2. But, conceding that Satan does exert a direct in- 
fluence on the mind, what then ? Why, that Mr. Camp- 
bell concedes to him and his angels a power which he 
denies to the Holy Spirit. But Mr. Campbell sets no 
limits to the power of the Spirit. He denies that it does 
act thus and so, not that it can. More than this he has 
never denied. 

But, even granting, as already stated, that Satan 
does exert a direct influence on the mind, is it possible 
that Mr. Jeter can make this the ground of an argument 
as to what the Spirit does? Does he mean to teach, 
because Satan can do a thing, and does it for wicked 
ends because he can, that we are therefore to conclude 
that the Holy Spirit does the same thing ? This is the 
pith of his argument; and yet he affects to be jealous 
for the "honor of the Holy Spirit." How dare he assert, 
conceding his position to.be correct, that the enormity 
of Satan's sin consists not in this very things — that he 



156 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

does, because he can, exert a direct influence on the 
mind ? For aught he knows, this may make the great 
trenching difference between the Spirit's intercourse 
with man and Satan's, — a difference which makes the 
intercourse of the latter intensely wicked. 

Scrappy as Mr. Jeter's book is, we did not expect to 
meet this stale piece in it. For the last quarter of a 
century this argument has been kept on hand by none 
but the lowest class of Mr. Campbell's opponents, until 
now it turns up in the tidy manual of the Eev. Mr. 
Jeter. 

SECTION IX. 

Objection 9. "The assumption that the Spirit can" 
{does) "operate on the soul of man in conversion only 
by arguments or words, is not only unphilosophical, 
but contrary to divinely-recorded facts. It is not true 
that physical power cannot produce a moral effect. . . . 
Christ was created holy. i The Holy Ghost shall come 
upon thee/ said the angel to Mary, 'and the power of 
the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore that holy 
thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God :' Luke iv. 35. Was not the holiness of the 
infant Eedeemer a moral quality? And was not this 
effect produced, not by arguments, persuasion, or words, 
but by the power — the physical power — of the Highest?" 

The holiness, then, of the infant Eedeemer was created : 
was it? Created exactly as a brad or an oyster is 
created; created, too, by the physical power of the 
Almighty! It was then a mere created thing, and 
hence, per se, of no more value than the color of a goosn. 



REVIEW OF CAMPEBLLISM EXAMINED. 157 

Now, in all the ranks of our brethren, where, we ask, 
is the man who has ever dared to utter even one sen- 
tence half so dishonoring to the divine Savior as this 
worse than Arian piece ? And yet the author of even 
this — who is, too, so very orthodox withal — can cant of 
Mr. Campbell's views of the divinity of Christ ! We 
shall, however, do him the justice to suppose that he 
would not again repeat what he has here written. Can 
even he be capable of the deed ? It is certainly a matter 
of wonder that an " assumption" which he deems to be 
so false should impel him to extremes so strange. 



SECTION X. 

Objection 10. "ISTo writer has so bitterly denounced 
metaphysical speculations and mystic theology as Mr. 
Campbell. One great object of his reformation was to 
rescue the Scriptures from the glosses of sectarian 
theorizers. I must say, that I have met with no writer 
on the agency of the Spirit in conversion, who has in- 
dulged so much in metaphysical disquisition, labored so 
hard to establish a theory, or drawn such momentous 
consequences from his own fine-spun speculations." 

The charge that Mr. Campbell, while opposing the 
speculations of others, has himself turned speculatist, 
and that he has labored to establish a theory, is with- 
out foundation. Indeed, the very reverse is true. No 
author has labored more to keep free from speculation, 
and none, perhaps, has succeeded better; and, as to a 
theory on any subject, he has never penned a line to 
establish one. But sectarians are a peculiar race. 

14 



158 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

When Mr. Campbell neither eats nor drinks, they say 
he has a devil; but when he both eats and drinks, they 
say he is a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of pub- 
licans and sinners. When Mr. Campbell refuses to 
speculate on the agency of the Spirit in conversion, 
they declare he denies that agency ; but when, to please 
them, he consents to explain, then they clamor, — A 
speculatist ! Truly, his taskmasters put him to a hard 
service. Mr. Campbell asserts that conviction is the 
work of the Spirit, and here would pause. But he is 
soon hurried from this position. He next asserts that 
sinners are quickened by the Truth; but this is unsatis- 
factory. He then explains; and now he is either a 
metaphysician or theorist. It is well that wisdom is 
justified by her children. 

If there is any one singular trait in the teachings 
of Mr. Campbell, — and the same is true of the teach- 
ings of his brethren, — it is their simplicity and freeness 
from speculation. The facility with which audiences 
understand him, the delight with which the unbigoted 
listen to his clear, fine thoughts, the readiness with 
which they accept his expositions of Scripture, — at once 
so fair and natural, — is the best refutation of the charge 
that he is either a speculatist or a theorist. It is, how- 
ever, not at all strange that Mr. Jeter, whose mind is a 
mere tissue of flimsy speculations, should, feeling him- 
self rebuked in the presence of a man free from specu- 
lation, seek to implicate him in his own follies. Oblique 
talkers generally excuse their deeds by saying that 
other people do not always speak the truth. 

Here, now, we close our examination of what Mr. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 159 

Jeter has to urge in the way of objections to our view 
of spiritual agency and influence in conversion: And 
are these all? If so, till heaven and earth shall pass 
away will that view stand. We never felt more pro- 
foundly penetrated with the conviction of its truth 
than now. These feeble objections have melted at its 
base like snow at the foot of the Andes, and still it 
stands. Mists may gather around it and objections lie 
on its outskirts ; but still it towers far up into a region 
where mists never gather and objections never collect. 
Its lustre may be obscured for a day ; but, like the sun 
marching behind a pavilion of cloud, it will gleam 
forth at last all the brighter for the transient obscurity. 
We commend it, therefore, to the confidence of all good 
men, and commit it to the safe-keeping of God. 



160 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



CHAPTEK Y. 

"THE IDENTITY OF REGENERATION, CONVERSION, AND BAPTISM." 

SECTION I. 
Such is Mr. Jeter's caption to some twenty-five pages 
of matter curious and empirical indeed. Here his pecu- 
liar genius displays itself to admiration. He sports 
like a giant with phantoms of his own creating, and 
plays with the freedom of a boy with Mr. Campbell's 
views, so " obscure, variable, and contradictory." His 
great argument, in the mastery of which not even the 
infidel himself shall dispute the palm with Mr. Jeter, 
is here employed with its finest effect. Truth and false- 
hood, vice and virtue, is and is not, are not more con- 
tradictory than the views of Mr. Campbell ! This has 
been for ages past, and still is, the chief ground on which 
the infidel has disputed the truth of Christianity. The 
Bible, he affirms, is contradictory, therefore it is false. 
And Mr. Campbell's views are contradictory, affirms 
Mr. Jeter, and hence must be false. With a single dis- 
tinction the analogy is complete : — the infidel may err, 
but not so Mr. Jeter ! Of all the arguments which can 
be urged against any cause, this, we believe, is, in 
the opinion of the best judges, deemed the feeblest. 
And yet extract this argument, together with all that 
rests on it, from Mr. Jeter's book, and the shrunken 
thing will resemble nothing so much as an Egyptian 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 161 

mummy. Of these feigned contradictions we shall take 
no notice. 

Before proceeding to the main subject of this chapter, 
we have first a few extracts to present from what Mr. 
Jeter has written under the preceding caption, on which 
a few remarks may be offered, in order to abbreviate 
our future labors and to correct some errors into which 
he — most innocently, no doubt — has fallen. 

I. " I do not charge Mr. Campbell with denying the 
necessity of a moral change preparatory to baptism. 
He has written equivocally — perhaps it would be better 
to say obscurely — on the subject. His love of novelty, 
the immaturity of his views, or the blinding influence 
of his theory, or all these causes combined, have im- 
pelled him to record many sentences which ingenuity 
less pregnant than his own finds it difficult to reconcile 
with my admission. " 

We regret that we cannot be obliged to Mr. Jeter for 
his " admission." Had it been made for Mr. Campbell's 
sake, we might have been so; but such was not the 
case. It was made, not to do Mr. Campbell justice, but 
to avoid a somewhat less sore event to Mr. Jeter him- 
self, — that of being convicted of wilful falsehood. He 
knew that the most partial and superficial reader of Mr. 
Campbell's writings could contradict him without this 
admission ; hence, he made it to save himself, — for no- 
thing else. 

But Mr. Campbell "has written equivocally — perhaps 
it would be better to say obscurely — on the necessity of a 
moral change before baptism." 

Candidly, we are grieved at this. We are willing to 

14* * L 



162 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

review Mr. Jeter severely, — nay, even bitterly, when he 
merits it, as he not seldom does, — but neither unjustly 
nor discourteously. But how, within any of these limits, 
to describe what he has here said, without the appear- 
ance of being rude, we confess we know not. It is to 
be regretted that an author whose pedigree points to an 
American origin should still by his speech so often be- 
tray a Cretan extraction. 

In writing near half a hundred volumes and thousands 
of pages, it would surely be a miracle had Mr. Campbell 
never penned an obscure or equivocal sentence. But is 
an equivocal or obscure sentence here and there only, a 
just ground on which to prefer a charge of writing 
equivocally or obscurely on a point which lies nearest 
the writer's heart? Are all Mr. Campbell's writings 
equivocal or obscure on the necessity of a moral change 
before baptism ? Alas for the weakness and corruption 
of the human heart ! If, it may truly be said, there is 
any one subject on which Mr. Campbell has shed the 
whole splendor of his peculiar eloquence, it is the neces- 
sity — the absolute necessity — of a change, a moral change, 
a spiritual change, a deep, vital, pervading change of the 
whole inner man, preparatory to baptism. Of all the sub- 
jects on which he has ever written, this appears to 
be that on which he is most sensitive, most cautious. 
He has described it and insisted on the necessity of it 
times innumerable, and in a style the most varied, 
pointed, and luminous. Who, then, we ask, that is un- 
willing to be recreant to the truth, can charge him with 
writing either equivocally or obscurely on the subject ? 
Is there no moral change implied in belief? none in re- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 168 

pentence? and does not Mr. Campbell insist that these 
shall precede baptism? On some subjects we may brook 
a charge w T hich is both false and injurious to us as a 
people; but Mr. Jeter must learn that this subject is not 
one of them. 

II. "Mr. Campbell has been frequently, but, I think, 
unfairly, charged with teaching baptismal regeneration. 
As popularly understood, baptismal regeneration de- 
notes a moral change effected through the influence of 
Christian baptism. Some things which Mr. Campbell 
has written, as we have seen, seem to imply this doc- 
trine ; and he has exposed himself to the suspicion of 
holding it by quoting its advocates in support of his 
peculiar views : but certainly he has never formally 
proclaimed it ; he earnestly advocates principles at war 
with it. What he certainly maintains is, not that we are 
regenerated by baptism, but that baptism is itself regenera- 
tion, and the only personal regeneration" 

We presume that Mr. Jeter has, in this extract, come 
as near doing Mr. Campbell justice as he has ever come 
doing any opponent justice; and he is far from doing 
him justice. He certainly, however, does Mr. Campbell 
the justice to acquit him of holding the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration, for which we thank him sincerely 
and heartily. Baptismal regeneration, as he justly states, 
denotes, as popularly understood, a moral change — i.e. a 
change of the inner man — effected by baptism. This doc- 
trine Mr. Campbell eschews from his whole heart. He 
has never penned even one sentence which, except by 
the most dishonest artifice, can be shown even to look 
towards the doctrine. He ascribes to baptism no value 



164 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

whatever except as a condition of remission, or (which 
is hardly a different thing) as a .part of the new birth ; 
but neither as a condition of remission nor as a part of 
the new birth does he ascribe to it any moral effect on 
the heart or the soul. Even as a part of the new birth 
it is a part to which no moral effect (effect on the inner 
man) can be ascribed. Indeed, all that is moral, strictly 
so called, in the new birth, precedes baptism, and neces- 
sarily so. True, as a condition of remission or as a part 
of the new birth, Mr. Campbell ascribes to baptism an 
immense value ; but the value which he ascribes to it 
consists in no power which it has to produce any moral 
effect or change in the heart or the soul, but solely in 
its being appointed, jointly with other conditions, for 
remission. 

But, while acquitting Mr. Campbell of holding, or 
rather teaching, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, 
Mr. Jeter had still to do so in such a manner as to leave 
the mind half suspicious that he may still be tinctured 
with the doctrine. "Some things [we repeat what he 
says] which Mr. Campbell has written, as we have 
seen, seem to imply this doctrine; and he has exposed him- 
self to the suspicion of holding it, by quoting its advocates 
in support of his peculiar views." This is not manly. 
Why, if Mr. Jeter really wished to acquit Mr. Campbell 
of the charge fully, did he not do it like a man, in one 
clear, broad sentence, unaccompanied by any suspicion- 
breeding qualifications? He acquits him because he 
knows him to be not guilty, and yet in such a way as 
to leave the impression that after all he may not be 
quite innocent. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 165 

But "what he [Mr. Campbell] clearly maintains is, not 
that we are regenerated by baptism, but that baptism is itself 
regeneration, and the only personal regeneration." 

What Mr. Campbell clearly maintains is, — 1st, that 
regeneration and the new birth are identical; 2d, that 
the new birth consists of two parts, — to wit : being be- 
gotten, or quickened, by the Spirit, and being baptized; 
and 3d, that, therefore, baptism is not itself regenera- 
tion, i.e. the whole of it. But because baptism, as a 
part, and especially as the last part, of regeneration, 
implies the other and preceding part, Mr. Campbell 
sometimes calls it regeneration, precisely as faith some- 
times stands for the whole gospel, in which, however, it 
is merely a single item. In this sense, but in no other, 
does he maintain that baptism is itself regeneration. 

III. As quoted by Mr. Jeter, Mr. Campbell thus 
writes: — "The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless 
babe never moved it one inch in the way to heaven, and 
never did change its heart, character, or relation to God 
and the kingdom of heaven. But not so a believer, im- 
mersed as a volunteer in obedience of the gospel. He 
has put on Christ." On which Mr. Jeter comments 
thus: — "The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless 
babe never did change its heart; but what is true of the 
sprinkling of an infant is not true of the voluntary im- 
mersion of a believer. So Mr. Campbell seems to 
teach." 

Plainly, Mr. Jeter means to say, that Mr. Campbell 
seems to teach that immersion changes the believer's heart. 
Did not his conscience smite him while penning this ? 
If not, he need never fear it in time to come while sin- 



166 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

ning. He may console himself with the reflection that 
he enjoys immunity from the punishment of at least one 
great foe to injustice and crime. But to an upright 
mind Mr. Campbell seems to teach no such doctrine as 
Mr. Jeter ascribes to him. Mr. Campbell certainly means 
to teach that there is a distinction between the sprinkling 
of an infant and the immersion of a believer. But what 
is it ? Has he merely implied it and left it to be in- 
ferred ? No. He distinctly expresses it. His language 
is ; " not so a believer, immersed as a volunteer in obe- 
dience of the gospel. He has put on Christ." Sprink- 
ling the babe does it no good, but not so the immersion 
of J w ne believer. By it he puts on Christ. This is the dis- 
tinction, and the only one, which Mr. Campbell even 
seems to teach, except by a construction which converts 
truth into falsehood, and against which the imperfections 
of human speech afford no protection. 



SECTION II. 

But what is the meaning of the terms Begeneration 
and Conversion, and to what extent, or in what sense, if 
any, are they identical with baptism ? To this question 
the present is not the place to reply fully. This can be 
better done in the chapter on remission of sins. In- 
deed, after what has now been said, neither a very full 
nor a very formal reply can be deemed necessary. For 
the present, therefore, we shall be content with sub- 
mitting merely such distinctions and other considera- 
tions as the nature of the case seems here to require aad 
as can with propriety be now introduced. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 167 

As we promised in a preceding chapter to assign the 
reasons elsewhere for there substituting the term "be- 
gotten" for the term "born," we shall now commenco 
by inquiring what is the only true and proper rendering 
of the original word rendered "born" in the phrase 
"born of God." Certainly it is to be rendered either 
by the term "begotten" or "born," but the question is, 
by which? Mr. Jeter thinks it may be rendered in- 
differently by either, according to the taste of the trans- 
lator. But in this he is unquestionably wrong. 

The principle which, in translating, takes precedence 
of all others, where it can be applied, is this : — where a 
doubt exists as to what English word we are to translate 
a term in the original by, select a case in which no doubt 
can exist } and render by the proper word; then, in every 
other case where this same original word occurs, render 
by. this same English word, unless the sense forbids it. 
This is perhaps the most important rule known to the 
science of interpretation, and, happily for the present 
question, applies, and consequently settles it forever. 

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born 
of God." Now, the question is, shall the word born be 
here retained, or shall it give place to the word begotten f 
In order to settle this question, the rule requires that 
we shall find a case in which this same original word 
occurs, but in which no doubt can exist as to what 
English word it is to be translated by. Let us then try 
the next clause : — "and every one that loveth him that — 
begat." Here it is impossible to employ the word born; 
and equally impossible to employ any other word but 
the word begat This, then, is a case in which no doubt 



168 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

can exist. Hence, in every case where this same origi- 
nal word occurs, it is to be rendered by begat or begotten, 
unless the sense forbids it. Let us now, using this term, 
render, according to the rule, the entire verse from 
which these clauses are taken. Whosoever believeth 
that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every 
one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is 
begotten of him. Here, now, by the force of the rule, 
we produce a rendering which is not only correct but 
uniform, — a circumstance constantly aimed at in every 
good translation. 

It may now be proper to cite a passage or two in 
which, although the same original word occurs, neither 
begat nor begotten can be used, because the sense forbids 
it. 1. "By faith, Moses when he was born was hid three 
months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper 
child." Here it is obvious at a glance that the term 
begotten cannot be used. 2. "Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God." Here again the sense requires born; 
because to say except a man be begotten of water, is 
nonsense. 

For these reasons we ventured to substitute the term 
begotten for the term born, in John iii. 8, thus: — The 
Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; 
but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes : 
in this way is (begotten) every one that is begotten by 
the Spirit. 

But in reply to this it may be asked, why not make a 
passage in which the original word has to be rendered 
born, as in the two last instances, the basis oi our criti- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 169 

cism, and compel the other passages to conform to it? 
We answer, where a term is used in two senses, a 
wider and a narrower, as is the case with the term now 
in hand, the rule applies to the term first in its narrower 
sense; since it is of necessity that the term must have its 
narrower sense, though not that it shall have its wider. 
It is hardly necessary to add that born is a term of wider 
signification than begat. For this reason, therefore, the 
rule must be applied as in the preceding instances. 

But now comes the great material question, Does the 
phrase begotten by the Spirit or begotten of God — for they 
are identical in sense — express the whole of the new birth ? 
In other words, does the new birth consist in being begotten 
by the Spirit, and in nothing else, even in part f Mi*. Jeter 
affirms that it does : we deny it. This constitutes the 
difference between us. 

The new birth consists in being born of water and of the 
Spirit. At least, so taught the Savior: — " Except a man 
be born of water and. of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God." That to be born of water and of the 
Spirit is to be born again, no honest man acquainted 
with the subject ever yet denied. And this is regenera- 
tion. Hence, regeneration consists not in being born of 
water alone, nor yet in being begotten by the Sp'ilt 
alone, but in the two jointly and inseparably, — is com- 
plete in neither, but only in them both. This is the 
doctrine for which we contend. 

In the order of events, it is true, being begotten by 
the Spirit precedes being born of water, and never suc- 
ceeds it. As that does not complete the new birth with- 
out this, so this without that is nothing. 

15 



170 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

So far, then, as regeneration consists in being born of 
water, so far it and baptism are identical ; no further. So 
much, then, for the identity of regeneration and baptism. 



SECTION III. 

Next in regard to the word conversion. All we have 
to say on this term shall consist in a few remarks on 
the following passages: — 1. " Wherefore my sentence is, 
that ye trouble not them who from among the Gentiles 
are turned to God." The word here rendered "are 
turned" is the word which in other places is rendered 
convert, conversion, &c. It was here applied to the first 
Gentile converts to Christianity, and comprehended all 
that made the difference between the alien and the bap- 
tized person, and hence, of course, baptism itself. Since, 
therefore, it applied to the whole of a process of which 
baptism is a part, conversion and baptism must, to a 
certain extent at least, be identical. Now, the question 
is, to what extent ? Or, putting the question in another 
form, Did the word conversion apply equally to all parts 
of the process of which baptism is a part, or is there not 
evidence that it applied more particularly to one part 
ilirm to any other, and, if so, to which part? 

In order to answer this question, we shall now present 
the second passage, to wit: — "Repent ye, therefore, and 
i: converted, tliat your sins may be blotted out." Now, 
we shall assume that the persons here addressed were 
believers, — a thing which need not be done, since Mr. 
J^ter concedes it. The following is his language, 
or, rather, view of the passage: — "'Repent/ said he, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 171 

(Peter,) change your minds, 'and be converted, reform 
your lives, (and these exercises clearly imply faith,) 'that 
your sins may be blotted out/ " 

The word conversion, then, did not, in this case, denote 
belief, since it was believers who were commanded to be 
converted. Neither did it denote repentance, since this 
is denoted by the appropriate term. What, then, did it 
denote? After belief and repentance, what remains? 
Baptism only. Baptism, then, we conclude, was that part 
of the whole process of turning to God, which the word 
conversion more especially applied to; hence to this 
extent, and in this sense, but in no other, conversion 
and baptism are identical. 

This, however, we wish distinctly to state, is a point 
upon which we, as a people, have never laid the slight- 
est stress. Seldom, in a long career, has Mr. Campbell 
mentioned it; and then never to insist on it as a matter 
of half the moment his enemies represent it as being. 
And, considering the offence it has given to certain weak- 
minded people, it would, perhaps, have been better had 
it never been mentioned at all. 



172 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 



CHAPTEE VI. 

"PRAYER NOT A DUTY OF THE UNBAPTIZED." 

SECTION L 

Under this head Mr. Jeter devotes some five pages of 
his book to what he conceives a " serious error" of 
Mr. Campbell and his brethren; and, although not a 
" chief" nor yet a " prominent" item, still, he thinks it 
"not an unimportant" one. He seems anxious to create 
the impression that we have either changed our views 
respecting it, or abandoned those we formerly held 
altogether. His language is : — " This was ah article of 
the primitive Campbellism, often and variously ex- 
pressed. It has not, so far as I have observed, been re- 
peated in the later writings of Mr. Campbell; nor has it 
been repudiated." Again: — "I do not know that Mr. 
Campbell would now maintain, or that any of the re- 
formers now embrace, the doctrine clearly inculcated in 
the above extract; but I must, in justice to the system 
under examination, briefly expose its fallacy." 

Not only in regard to the item now in hand, but in 
regard to our views generally, Mr. Jeter labors through- 
out his book to make it appear that, if we have not, as 
a people, wholly abandoned some of them, we have at 
least materially changed them. Indeed, according to 
him, no man would seem to be so fickle as Mr. Campbell, 
and no people so fickle as his brethren. That we have 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 178 

changed in a sense, as a people, we are proud to acknow- 
ledge. We have grown wiser and better and stronger; but 
not even the semblance of a change in any other sense 
do we admit. And, instead of abandoning any views 
heretofore held, every year serves only to deepen our 
conviction of their truth and to cause us to cherish 
them with a more unwavering faith. We took our 
earlier, as we have taken our later, lessons from the 
Bible, and as yet have seen no reason either to alter or 
abandon them. We therefore plead not guilty to the 
charge of changing, — not even in regard to the preceding 
item. 

We assert now, as we have ever done, that there is 
not one passage in the Bible which, during the reign of 
Christ, makes it the duty of an unbaptized person to 
pray. Mr. Jeter is greatly mistaken if he supposes that 
we cherish not this as a capital item. We do not say 
the sinner may not pray; and, when he does pray, we 
do not say it is wrong. Let us be understood. We do 
say, with singular emphasis, that it is not the duty of the 
sinner, the unbaptized, to pray for the remission of his 
sins; that it is not made his duty to do so by the Bible, — 
not even by implication. It is against this practice, or 
rather fiction, that our objection is especially pointed. 

The sinner is taught by orthodox preachers — blind 
guides in this case, certainly — to pray for the remission 
of his sins ; nay, more, that God will give him a feeling 
sense of remission when it occurs. Accordingly, with a 
broken heart and a subdued spirit, day after day, week 
after week, and often year after year, in blind — but, it is 
to be hoped, innocent — neglect of his real duties, he re- 

15* 



174 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISxM EXAMINED. 

peats the same fruitless prayer. And pray he may; but, 
unless the Savior contravene the laws of his kingdom, 
to accept, in a moment of awful extremity, the will for 
the deed of the sincere but deluded sinner, into the pre- 
sence of the Lord he may come, but it will not be, we 
have many a fear, to remain. The sinner's agony of 
mind and soul during this time, though it may stop 
short of lunacy or suicide, as fortunately in most cases 
it does, is always most intense and bitter. The wail we 
have heard from his heart, his indescribable look of de- 
spair, his shriek and smothered groan, strangely mingling 
with the flippant and, in too many instances, irreverent 
cant of the preacher, "Pray on, brother : the Lord will yet 
have mercy on your soul," have never failed, while they 
have pierced us with inexpressible grief, to create in our 
mind the most painful apprehensions as to the fate of 
those who cherish and teach the doctrine. Of all the 
gross and fatal delusions of Protestants, there are few 
we can deem worse than this. It is a shame to the 
Baptist denomination — of which we can truly say, 
"With all thy faults, I love thee still"— that it should 
hold and teach this error. Were the sinner, in a mo- 
ment of deep distress, to pray the Lord to forgive his 
sins, we could not find it in our heart to chide him 
for the deed; but we should certainly endeavor to teach 
him the way of the Lord more perfectly. But one 
thing we should never do : — teach him what the Bible 
does not teach him, — to expect the remission of his sins 
merely because he prayed for it. Why pray for a bless- 
ing which our heavenly Father has never promised to 
confer in this way or for this reason, but which he 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 175 

certainly does confer in another way and for a different 
reason? Where is the advantage of the prayer unless 
the Lord has promised to heed it ? 

We shall now present an extract from Mr. Jeter's 
book, containing a general summary of his faith on the 
present subject. "Prayer/' he remarks, "has been the 
duty of man under every dispensation of religion. The 
obligation to this service springs from the relation 
between the infinitely-merciful God, and fallen, guilty, 
and dependent man in a probationary state. It is an 
essential element in true piety. It is the very breath 
of spiritual life, — a life which, I have already shown, does 
not depend on the act of immersion, but, in the evan- 
gelical order of things, precedes that act. It implies 
repentance, faith, and scriptural regeneration. No man 
can pray acceptably to God without renouncing his sins, 
believing in Christ, and having a new heart. And no 
man was ever a proper subject for Christian baptism who 
had not been taught to pray sincerely and fervently." 

It would be difficult to produce, even from this most 
confused of books, a paragraph indicative of greater 
confusion of mind than we here have. Some things 
which it contains are true; but more than half is false. 
But we shall be confined to a few particulars : — 

1. "Prayer has been the duty of man under every 
dispensation of religion." 

This is what is termed, in logical language, begging 
the question The very point in dispute is, whether it is 
the duty of man — i.e. all men, sinners and saints — to 
pray under the reign of Christ. This is the very thing 
which we deny, and which Mr. Jeter, finding himself 



176 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

unable to prove, quietly assumes. It lias certainly 
always been the duty of men to pray; but then 
conies the question, What men ? When he says all, 
this is a petitio, and not a meeting of the point in 
dispute. 

2. "The obligation to this service springs from the 
relation between the infinitely-merciful God, and fallen, 
guilty, and dependent man in a probationary state." 

It is unquestionably true that relation gives rise to 
obligation ; but what specific duties a relation obliges us 
to perform, we learn, not from the relation itself, but 
from the laws which enact them. Eelation creates obli- 
gation, but law defines it. Hence, although our relation 
to our heavenly Father may oblige us, as it certainly 
and justly does, yet in what precise respect, or to what 
specific duty, we learn not from the relation itself, but 
from the law which defines the respect or enacts the 
duty. The same relation which obliges us to pray 
would equally oblige us to believe and repent ; and yet 
w r e learn that these are duties, not from the relation, 
but from the precepts which enact them. In precisely 
the same way must we learn the duty of the sinner, — 
i.e. not from the relation which he sustains to our 
heavenly Father, and which obliges him, but from the 
law which defines in what respect he is obliged, or 
to what duty. Consequently, since there is no law 
(we state it with emphasis) defining the sinner to be 
obliged to pray for the remission of his sins, we hence con- 
clude that this is not his duty and therefore will avail 
him nothing. 

3. "And no man was ever a proper subject for Chris- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 177 

tian baptism who had not been taught to pray sincerely 
and fervently." 

This is merely the bald assertion of Mr. Jetev. That 
he has a strong persuasion of its truth we shall not 
deny; but had he imbibed his religious convictions from 
the Bible, and not from tradition, it is something he 
would never have uttered. It is difficult for a man who 
has been long steeped in error to persuade himself that 
his errors are not divine; hence the boldness with 
which Mr. Jeter asserts the truth of his. 



SECTION II. 

But it is now proper to present Mr. Jeter's defence 
of his doctrine. "What," he inquires, "say. the Scrip- 
tures on this point? — ( And Jesus spake a parable unto 
them, [the disciples,] to this end, that men ought always 
to pray and not to faint/ " On which he comments 
thus: — "Christ taught that men — not baptized men 
merely, but men, irrespective of their character, rela- 
tions, or professions — all men — ought, are under obliga- 
tion, to pray." 

Now, waiving all dispute as to the relevancy of this 
parable to the real question at issue, we shall cheer- 
fully concede that it teaches that men ought to pray ; 
but the question is, What men ? Does it teach that all 
men ought to pray, or only the disciples, or persons 
named by the Savior in the conclusion he draws from 
the parable ? The former is Mr. Jeter's position, the 
latter ours. The whole parable and the conclusion are 

as follows : — 

M 



178 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

"And he [Christ] spake a parable unto them, [the 
disciples,] to this en"d, that men ought always to pray 
and not to faint ; saying, There was in a city a judge 
which feared not God, neither regarded man. And 
there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, 
saying, Avenge me of mine adversary : and he would 
not for a while. But afterwards he said within himself, 
Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet, because 
this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest, by her 
continual coming, she weary me. And the Lord said, 
Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God 
avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, 
though he bear long with them ? I tell you that he will 
avenge them speedily." 

Now, will this language apply to sinners? Are they 
God's own elect, who cry day and night to him? So to 
assert would be shocking. And yet clearly "God's own 
elect" are the persons for whose benefit the parable was 
spoken, and whom it teaches to pray always and not to 
faint. It has no reference whatever to sinners. 

But the following rendering of Dr. Campbell settles 
the question: — "He [Christ] also showed them, [the 
disciples,] by a parable, that they ought to persist in 
prayer without growing weary." 

Why, now, did Mr. Jeter cite only the introduction to 
the parable, and build his argument on it, intentionally 
suppressing the conclusion, which he knew to be de- 
cisive against him ? It is surely a pity that a man who 
affects to oppose nothing but error should yet so often 
do so with those artifices with which dishonest men 
alone stoop to oppose the truth. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 179 

The next case alluded to by Mr. Jeter is that of the 
publican who went up to the temple to pray. But this 
is not a case in point. We have not denied that it was 
the duty of a Jew, living under the law, to pray. What 
we deny is that it is the duty of the ungodly, during 
the reign of Christ, to pray. But even the case of the 
publican does not determine who — i.e. whether saint or 
sinner — is to pray, but only that whoever prays must, 
if he pray acceptably, pray with deep, heartfelt humility. 
This is what the case determines, — no more. 

The third case referred to is that of the thief on the 
cross. But this case, again, has no reference whatever 
to the question in dispute. Besides being a case which 
can never happen again, and intended to teach no gene- 
ral duty, it occurred at a time when baptism was obli- 
gatory on no one. We shall, therefore, dismiss it with- 
out further notice. 

The fourth and last case adduced by Mr. Jeter is that 
of Saul of Tarsus, of which he thus speaks: — "When 
Saul of Tarsus was converted, the Lord directed Ananias 
to go to him, for, behold, said the Lord, he prayeth. 
(Acts ix. 11.) It is clear from this Scripture, beyond a 
question, not only that Saul prayed before his baptism, 
but that his prayer was acceptable to the Lord, and that 
Ananias was sent to instruct and baptize him in conse- 
quence of its acceptableness ; and this example of ac- 
ceptable prayer has all the weight, authority, and effi- 
cacy of an explicit command to the unbaptized to 
pray." 

1. We readily grant that Saul prayed, but deny that 
he prayed because Christ made it his duty to pray. He 



180 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

prayed precisely as any other Jew, in deep sorrow, 
would have prayed, and for no other reason. 

2. That his prayer was acceptable to the Lord is not 
known. It may or it may not have been, for aught that 
appears in the narrative. The Lord merely stated the 
fact that he prayed, not that he accepted his prayer. To 
state a fkct, as a fact, is one thing ; to accept it as an act 
of worship, another. We must first show that the Lord 
has made it the duty of the sinner to pray, before we can 
infer that his prayer is acceptable. And as to Ananias 
being sent to instruct and baptize Saul in consequence of 
the acceptableness of his prayer, it is a sheer fiction. There 
exists no evidence that it is true. 

The most that can be said of the case of Saul (and 
this much certainly can be said) is, that, when Ananias 
commanded him to be baptized and wash away his sins, 
he commanded him to do so calling on the name of the 
Lord. And so we say. Command the sinner, not to 
pray for the remission of his sins, (for the Lord has not 
enjoined it on him,) but to be baptized and wash them 
away calling on the name of the Lord. This form of 
prayer, and under these circumstances, we approve from 
our heart. 

And are these cases all that Mr. Jeter could urge in 
defence of his doctrine ? and does he ask us to accept it 
as true on no better grounds ? We shall only add, we 
wonder that even he did not become ashamed of his 
feeble defence, and abandon: the cause he was so in- 
effectually seeking to establish. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 181 



CHAPTEE VII. 



REMISSION OF SINS. 



SECTION I. 

The subjects heretofore treated of are important cer- 
tainly, but the present one is peculiarly so. Indeed, 
those subjects derive their value from this. Hence, 
no effort should be spared to understand it, nor any 
method be left untried which is likely to aid us in form- 
ing accurate scriptural conceptions of it. The absorb- 
ing interest of the subject, and the conflicting opinions 
which exist respecting it, should make us patient in the 
collection of such facts as seem most likely to lead to 
sound decisions concerning it, as well as careful in com- 
bining those facts and just in deducing from them no 
conclusion which they do not warrant. Prom the mind 
and from the heart every preference for any view of 
the subject, which it is not clearly the intention of our 
heavenly Father we should entertain, should be banished 
completely and forever. Upon this subject, at least, let 
the sincere love of the truth direct our thoughts. 

In the discussion of this subject Mr. Jeter consumes 
some sixty-nine pages of his book. Perhaps we should 
suppose him sincere. It is not impossible he may be so. 
But, candidly, this part of his book affords no feeble 
evidence that the love of the truth dwells not in his 
heart. If, throughout the whole chapter, he was not 

16 



182 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

struggling against the clear convictions of his con- 
science, he has at least shown that he was struggling 
against the almost overpowering light of the Truth. 
We stoop not to do him injustice, but we know not the 
book, making the slightest pretension to truth, from 
which can be extracted a more shameful perversion 
of it than is contained in this inflated performance. 
Throughout the whole piece he labors to make it appear 
that he is saying something important; hence its re- 
dundancy of silly epithets. It teems with trickery and 
special pleading, and perks its commonplace sayings in 
Our face on every page. There is something about it 
so false, haggled, and paltry, as to leave the mind im- 
pressed with no feelings but mingled pity and disgust. 
Upon the ground of merit, whether consisting in defen- 
sive arguments or refutatory strength, we should never 
have lifted a pen over this wretched chapter. But we 
shall be expected to notice it, and, accordingly, shall do 
so. We make it the occasion of restating our own 
views, which will exhaust its value to the world. 

In the present chapter we shall assume that sins 
during the reign of Christ are remitted according to 
a uniform plan ; or, in other words, that the conditions 
on which they are remitted are precisely the same in 
every case. Now, the question is, what is that plan, or 
what those conditions ? When we assume that these 
conditions are the same in every case, let us be under- 
stood. We speak not of the innocent babe, the irre- 
sponsible idiot, or untaught heathen. We speak of 
those only who have attained to years of accountability, 
and to whom the redemption w^hich is in Christ Jesus 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. 183 

has been tendered. We are now, in other words, to 
discuss the law of remission, not the question, Are there 
exceptions to it? to determine the grounds on which 
God will forgive the responsible, not those on which he 
saves the irresponsible ; to ascertain the plan according 
to which he will save the enlightened, not that accord- 
ing to which he saves the unenlightened. 

Mr. Jeter maintains that a person's sins are remitted 
the instant in which he becomes a penitent believer, and, 
consequently, before and without baptism. From this we 
dissent. 

We maintain that the sinner, though a believer, is still 
required to repent and be baptized in order to the remission 
of his sins, and, consequently, that they are not remitted 
before and without baptism. 

We shall now proceed to the defence of this position; 
after which, we shall notice such of Mr. Jeter's objec- 
tions to it as may be deemed, on any ground, worthy 
of notice. We shall then notice his defence of his own 
position. 

The passage on which we base our first argument is 
the following : — u G-o ye into all the world and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

That the salvation here spoken of is that primary 
salvation which consists in the remission of sins, we 
hold to be simply certain. The Savior directs the 
apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature. 
This is the salvation which occurs first and immediately 
after the preaching ; hence, there is no salvation which 
precedes this, nor any sense in which, previous to it, 



184 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the term salvation will apply. This is the first, and is 
so called because it consists in the remission of sine. 
If any one doubts this, let him attempt to form to him 
self the conception of some preceding salvation; let him 
state in what it consists, then in what this consists, 
if not in the remission of sins ; then let him make the 
effort to establish by the word of God the reality of 
such preceding salvation, and he will not be long in 
discovering — if honest — his error. 

Nor can it fail to strike any one that this salvation is 
conditional, and that the conditions are named in the 
passage. These conditions are not to be regarded in 
the light of causes, but as conditions strictly. Still, 
let no one suppose, because they are conditions, that 
they are not essential to whatever is made dependent 
on them. A condition may be as absolutely essential 
to whatever is dependent on it as though it were a 
cause in the highest sense of the w x ord. There is this 
distinction: — the connection between a cause and its 
effect is necessary; that is, it exists in the very nature 
of things; but the connection between a condition and 
whatever depends on it is not necessary, but arbitrary. 
It exists at the will, or by the appointment, of him who 
prescribes the condition. Hence, conditions have no 
power to produce, or merit to procure, that which de- 
pends on them. It is in all cases conferred as a gratuity 
or favor. Compliance with conditions, on the ground 
that there is merit in it, can oblige the Savior to confer 
no blessing. Though he has prescribed the conditions, 
and they are complied with, still, the blessing conferred 
is a matter of grace or mercy. But, where he has 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 185 

promised to confer such blessing, it will as certainly be 
conferred, where the prescribed conditions are complied 
with, as though the conditions were absolute causes and 
the blessing an effect certain to follow. What is here 
said presents us with the true view and suggests the 
real value of the conditions named in the passage. 

Two questions here present themselves, — both easily 
answered, to-be-sure, — the first respecting the number of 
these conditions, the second, what they are. The first 
of these questions may be deemed by some a matter of 
no moment. From such a view we differ. Not that 
we think any thing of moment depends on the mere 
circumstance of these conditions being many or few. 
There exists a far higher reason than this for de- 
termining their number. That reason we shall embody 
in the form of a rule, thus: — Where salvation is promised 
to a person, or affirmed of him, on certain named conditions, 
though it may depend on more conditions than those named, 
it can never depend on less. To this rule there is not, we 
affirm, an exception in the Bible. We boldly challenge 
Mr. Jeter to produce even one, or to show that the rule 
in any case affirms falsely and is hence unsound. Unless 
he can do this, the controversy between him and us in 
regard to the value of baptism is at an end. 

Now, that the passage in hand contains two, and but 
two, conditions, is obvious even to the eye. These con- 
ditions are belief and baptism. The Savior promises 
salvation to, or affirms it of, him who complies with 
these conditions. This is absolutely certain. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Hence, unless 
the foregoing rule can be shown to be unsound, (which 



186 REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

we predict will not be shown,) it follows that, although 
salvation — or, which is the same thing, remission of sins 
— may depend on more than belief and baptism, the two 
named conditions, it can never depend on less. And, when 
we say it can never depend on less, we beg that our 
previous limitation will be borne in mind. We speak of 
the responsible to whom the gospel is preached, and of 
them alone. Here now is an argument, which we 
believe to be true in its premises and correct in its con- 
struction, with its conclusion regularly drawn, to which 
we invite the special attention of Mr. Jeter. We re- 
quest of him that he will come manfully and fairly for- 
ward and join issue with us over this argument; that he 
will show that its premises are false, its construction de- 
fective, or its conclusion not fairly drawn. This much 
we have a right to demand, and we do demand it in the 
name of truth and reason. Should he fail to comply, he 
confesses his incompetency to the task, and abandons 
the question at issue in our favor. 

Nor can we admit, much as Mr. Jeter is inclined to 
cavil at it, that salvation depends on one of these con- 
ditions more than on the other. The very form of ex- 
pression which creates the dependence makes salvation 
depend on the two conditions jointly and on each equally. 
The present, moreover, is the passage which creates this 
joint dependence. Hence, no passage spoken previously 
to it can have the least effect in weakening it, certainly 
none in showing that it does not exist; and, since none 
spoken subsequently in the least affects it, it follows 
that the dependence once established must be considered 
as established forever. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 187 

Under what circumstances, if any, the Savior will 
void these conditions, or in what cases, if at all, he will 
void one but not the other, are questions we shall leave 
the curious to decide. 

But, for the sake of those whose convictions rest not 
so much on argument as on simple, transparent state- 
ments, it may be proper to somewhat amplify the pas- 
sage. Of whom, then, does it say, he shall be saved? 
Clearly, of him who believes and is baptized. Of him who 
believes but is not baptized, it says nothing; neither of 
him who is baptized but does not believe, does it say 
any thing. Of him alone who believes and is baptized 
does it say any thing ; but of him it does say he shall 
be saved. The instant he believes and is baptized, 
all the passage says is true of him, but not an instant 
before. 

The psssage directs the apostles to go into all the 
world and preach the gospel to every creature. Out of 
the whole number preached to, it selects a particular 
class, of each of whom it says, he shall be saved, reject- 
ing all the rest. What now makes the difference be- 
tween the class selected and the class rejected? For 
what especial reason is a preference shown ? Each one 
of the class selected believes and is baptized. This makes 
the difference. No matter how much, or how little, or 
what, short of this, the class rejected may do, of it sal- 
vation is not affirmed. The class selected believes and is 
baptized; therefore it is saved. 

We shall now subjoin, and briefly examine, a passage 
which is thought to justify a very different conclusion 
from that now arrived at; to wit : — "Be that believeth on 



188 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the Son hath everlasting life." On this passage Mr. Jeter 
and all that class of sophists to which he belongs lay 
great stress. Their argument on it is briefly this : — He 
that believes on the Son has in him, the instant in which 
he does so, the principle or germ of eternal life, and is 
therefore to be considered forgiven. If by this it is 
meant that belief is the principle or germ of eternal life, 
we shall grant it to be correct, but still deny that he 
who simply believes is, on that ground alone, forgiven. 
But if it is meant that the principle or germ of eternal 
life is something else besides belief, — which implies re- 
mission, — we utterly deny that the passage teaches the 
doctrine. 

But, without being more specific, let us grant that the 
passage affirms remission, or what implies it, of him 
who believes ; and more than this it certainly does not 
affirm. Eemission of sins, then, according to the rule 
previously stated, can never depend on less than belief, 
— the named condition, — though it may depend on more. 
Now, it will readily be conceded that it can never de- 
pend on less ; but may it depend on more ? Even Mr. 
Jeter concedes not only that it may depend on more, but 
that it actually does, — namely, on repentance. And, in so 
doing, he concedes what proves the utter annihilation 
of the sole ground on which his doctrine of remission 
rests. For, if remission may depend on more than be- 
lief, — the only condition named in the passage, — the 
question arises, On how much more ? When Mr. Jeter 
says, on repentance only, this is an arbitrary limitation. 
We cannot admit this to be the answer to the question, 
How much more ? But, according to the rule, remission 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 189 

cannot depend on less than both belief and baptism, — the 
conditions named in the previous passage; whereas, 
both according to the rule and Mr. Jeter's concession, it 
may depend on more than belief, — the only condition 
named in the present passage. Now, one thing will be 
granted, — that the passages are reconcilable. When, 
then, we concede that remission of sins may depend on 
more than belief, — the sole condition named in the pre- 
sent passage, — must we not concede at least as much as is 
contained within the narrowest limits of the previous pas- 
sage? If not, the passages are not reconcilable, since 
they teach that remission of sins depends not on one 
and the same set of conditions, but on two different sets; 
which, again, is contrary to the hypothesis that the 
conditions are the same in all cases. Hence, since bap- 
tism is the only condition contained within these limits 
which is not named in the present passage, it follows 
that we are bound to concede baptism to be necessary 
to salvation or remission. 

In order to sustain Mr. Jeter's position that remission 
of sins depends on belief and repentance alone, one of 
these passages must be so construed as to imply a con- 
dition which it does not name; but, in order to oppose 
our position, the other must be so construed as either to 
exclude, or render null, a condition which it does name. 
How amiable must that complacency be which blinds a 
man to nothing so much as his folly, and forbids no 
blush but that which inconsistency prompts ! 

But, granting that he who believes is, in the instant 
in which he does so, saved : what follows ? He that 
believes and is baptized shall be — what? Not saved, 



190 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

surely; for lie is already saved in the exact sense in 
which the passage says, he shall be saved. Can we say 
of an event which is past, and which can never happen 
but once, that it shall be? Is this the language of truth? 
We see not the distinction between avowed infidelity 
and that system of religion which compels the Bible to 
falsify itself. 

But Mr. Jeter's exposition of the passage on which 
our first argument is based is worthy to be repeated. It 
is contained in the^ following extract: — "The assurance 
that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved does 
by no means warrant the conclusion that remission of 
sins does not precede baptism. There is perfect accord- 
ance between this promise and the plain, literal declara- 
tion of Jesus that i he that believeth on the Son is not 
condemned/ Certainly, if he that believes on the Son 
is not condemned, he who not only believes in the Son, 
but, in submission to his authority, is baptized, is not 
condemned." 

If he that believes on the Son is not condemned, 
certainly he that believes and is baptized is not con- 
demned; or, plainly, he that is not condemned is not 
condemned! Such is the logic of Mr. Jeter. It may 
comport with his sense of propriety to trifle thus with 
solemn things, but in the act he confesses his inability 
to meet the issue between him and us. No one is de- 
ceived into the belief that this is either argument or 
criticism, or any thing more than a shallow artifice 
adopted to evade the force of an unanswerable position. 
But "the assurance that he that believes and is bap- 
tized shall be saved does by no means warrant the con- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 101 

elusion that remission of sins does not precede baptism." 
In other words, a divine promise that a person, on 
compliance with certain named conditions, shall receive 
a stipulated blessing, by no means warrants the conclu- 
sion that the reception of the blessing does not precede the 
compliance! Thus foolishly argues our opponent. 

But Mr. Jeter, after all, compliments the position he 
so vainly seeks to refute, by the very disposition he 
makes of this passage. His evasive and quibbling treat- 
ment of it is a virtual acknowledgment that the argu- 
ment which we, as a people, base upon it, is, by him at 
least, wholly unanswerable. He shrunk from a manful 
encounter of that argument, and in the deed confessed 
it to be invincible. To omit all notice of the passage he 
knew would be highly impolitic, and yet in treating it 
he touched it with a delicacy which nothing save his 
sense of utter incompetency could create. Had Mr. 
Jeter felt himself able to wrest the passage from our 
hands, or to show that the use we make of it is illegiti- 
mate, he is not the man to let the occasion slip. In that 
event nothing short of a score of pages could have ex- 
hausted his revelry or afforded vent for his exultant 
feelings. His array of exclamation-points would have 
exhausted the printer's stock on hand, his ordinals 
would have mounted rapidly up to tenthly, and the te 
deum to Orthodoxy would have been repeated in tones 
unusually sweet ; but, alas, eleven lines scant is all the 
space Mr. Jeter could afford to devote to the passage ! 

But what of the passage "he that believeth on the Son is 
not condemned" ? 

1st. It is to be explained precisely as we have already 



102 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

explained the passage, "he that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life." 

2d. Since the passage was spoken long before baptism 
was instituted, and without any reference to it, it can 
hence have no power to invalidate the design of an in- 
stitution then future. But, even granting that, when 
the passage was spoken, remission of sins depended 
strictly on belief alone, it would only follow that in 
subsequently prescribing the conditions of remission 
the Savior determined that it should depend no longer 
on belief alone, but on belief and something more. 

3d. Where two statutes exist, — a former and a latter, 
both on the same subject, — the latter is always held to be 
the law; and, if any difference exists between them, the 
latter stands, setting aside the former precisely to the 
extent of the difference. And the rule holds true of the 
divine no less than of the civil law. Suppose, then, "he 
that believeth on the Son is not condemned' ' to be the 
former statute, (which is strictly true,) and "he that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved" to be the latter: 
which stands as the law of the Savior upon the subject 
of salvation ? None can mistake the correct reply. 



SECTION II. 

The passage on which we found our second argument 
is the following: — "Then Peter said to them, Repent and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit" 

Without some qualification it is not correct to say of 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 19d 

one passage of Scripture that it is more important than 
another. But it is certainly true of some passages that 
they are more important than others in the decision of 
certain questions, their importance in such cases depend- 
ing^on their pertinency to the question in hand and 
their force in deciding it. Accordingly, in deciding the 
terms upon which the remission of sins is to be enjoyed, 
no more important passage can be adduced than the 
one now in hand. It speaks to the question of remis- 
sion intentionally, clearly, decisively. Had we not an- 
other passage in the Bible upon the subject, we should 
still insist that this passage alone forever fixes the value 
of baptism by the establishment of an inseparable con- 
nection between it and remission of sins. "We fear not 
to go before the world and stake the entire issue between 
Mr. Jeter and us, respecting the design of baptism, upon 
this single passage. We emphasize its value in the 
present controversy and solicit for it especial attention. 

Now, we affirm that this passage teaches that baptism 
w r ith repentance is for — that is, is necessary to — remission 
of sins; that it makes remission depend on baptism in 
precisely the same sense in which it makes it depend on 
repentance; and that a connection is thus established 
between them of a nature so permanent that remission 
is in all cases (previous exceptions aside) consequent on 
baptism and never precedes it. 

It will not be denied that the connection here con- 
tended for is possible. It is certainly competent for our 
heavenly Father to make remission depend on baptism 
in the most absolute sense. Since, then, the connection 
is not impossible, the question, Does it exist ? is fairly 

17 N 



194 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

open for discussion; and, since it is a question of fact, 
it is susceptible of proof precisely as is any other ques- 
tion of fact in the Bible. 

But iet it be determined, — 1st, whether the form of 
speech employed to express this connection, supposing 
it to exist, is, in the judgment of critics, adequate to 
that purpose ; 2d, whether it is a form of speech well 
established or of frequent occurrence in the New Testa- 
ment. The form of speech to which we refer is the use 
of the Greek particle eiq (ise) to express that an act or 
acts is performed for — i.e. in order to — some end or object; 
and the presence of an accusative case to express what 
that end or object is. But is this form of speech ade- 
quate to this purpose? That it is so, we shall consider 
established by the following testimonies : — 

1. "Ets, followed by an accusative, in almost innume- 
rable instances designates the object or end for which any 
thing is, or is done." — Prof. M. Stuart. 

2. "Etq, the design intended and the event produced 
are also expressed by this preposition." — W. Trollope, 
of Pembroke College, Cambridge. 

The literal, or, rather, primary, meaning of ete, it is 
proper to state, is into, a meaning confined chiefly to 
verbs of motion, — the motion being directed into some- 
thing or somo place. But the sense of the passage now 
in hand forbids this meaning. For, first, if the particle 
be taken litei ally, the passage is not intelligible, or, at 
best, has a vary uncertain meaning. Second, it belongs 
to a class of passages in which the particle signifies not 
into, but in order to, expressing the' end or object for 
which something is done. Evidence for what is here 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. 195 

said will be furnished in the course of the present 
argument. 

But is this form of speech of frequent occurrence or 
well established in the New Testament ? That it is so, 
we shall now proceed to exemplify by actual instances. 
Of each of these we shall quote no more than will be 
necessary; and, in order to indicate the exact mean- 
ing of the particle, we shall, in each case, translate it, 
together with a few of the words which immediately 
follow it. Let the reader bear in mind that what we 
are now at is, to show that etg is employed to express 
the design of an act or that for which it is performed. 

1. And, behold, the whole city came out (etc;) in order 
to a meeting with Jesus. 

2. Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the 
whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath 
done, be told (etc;) in order to her being remembered. 

3. And they took counsel and bought with them the 
potters' field, (ei<~) in order to [have] a burying-place for 
strangers. 

4. This is my body which is given for you : this do 
(etc.) in order to my being remembered. 

5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship 
(et<;) in order to [induce] the obedience of faith among 
all nations. 

6. I long to see you, that I may impart to you some 
spiritual gift (etc;) in order to your being established. 

7. Submit yourselves to governors as to them that are 
sent by the Lord (etcj) in order to punish evil-doers. 

8. This is my blood which is shed (etq) in order to 
remission of sins. 



196 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

9. And John came into all the country about the 
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance (etq) in 
order to remission of sins. 

10. Eepent ye, therefore, and be converted (etq) in 
order to the blotting out of your sins. 

These, though only a few from a large number of pas- 
sages all belonging to the same class, are quite sufficient 
to show that this is a common and well-established form 
of speech in the New Testament. 

But does the passage now in hand belong to this class? 
We reply, It does ; and that this is shown by a circum- 
stance which renders it absolutely certain. In order to 
present the most distinct view of this circumstance, and 
at the same time to exhibit the dependent clauses of the 
passage in immediate connection with one another, let 
us omit, first, the clause "in the name of Jesus Christ/' 
when the passage (leaving the particle untranslated) 
will read thus : — Eepent and be baptized, every one of 
you, eis remission of sins. Next, let us transpose the 
first two clauses of the passage, when it will stand 
thus : — Every one of you repent and be uaptized eiq 
remission of sins. Last, let us omit the expression "be 
baptized," which will neither affect the form of speech 
nor the sense of the particle, when we shall have, Every 
one of you repent etq remission of sins ; or, translating 
the particle, Every one of you repent (er<r) in order to 
remission of sins. Prom this there cannot be a dissent- 
ing voice. No expression but in order to, or the word 
for in the sense of in order to, will express the meaning 
of the particle. • Here, now, the relation between repent- 
ance and remission of sins is clearly seen. Eemission 



REVIEW OE CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 197 

of sins is seen to depend on repentance, or repentance to 
be necessary to remission. Now, this relation is precisely 
the circumstance which determines to what class the 
passage belongs, — namely, to that class in which etq sig- 
nifies "in order to," — i.e. necessarily, and in which, conse- 
quently, it can signify nothing else. 

But does not the presence of the term "be baptized" 
except the passage from this class ? We shall see. The 
audience were commanded to do two things : — repent 
and be baptized. These two things are related to a 
third, — remission of sins ; and, whatever that relation 
is, it is of necessity one, for there is but one particle to 
express it, which, in the same place, cannot express two 
relations. Consequently, whatever relation repentance 
bears to remission of sins, baptism bears to it. Hence, 
the presence of the term "be baptized" does not except 
the passage from the class. 

Since, therefore, the relation which repentance bears 
to remission of sins determines the passage to belong to 
that class in which eiq signifies in order to, and in which 
it can signify nothing else, and since the presence of the 
term "be baptized" does not except the passage from 
that class, it follows that the true intent and meaning 
of the passage is, Eepent and be baptized, every one 
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, («c) in order to 
remission of sins. 

Finally, we conclude, from the grounds now before us, 
that the relation of baptism to remission of sins is such 
that baptism, like repentance, is necessary to remissior.) 
or that remission depends on baptism in precisely the 
same sense in which it depends on repentance, And, if 
17* 



198 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

there is either value in criticism or reliance to be placed 
in argument, the conclusion is indisputable. 

But let us suppose this position to be denied, and that 
it is maintained that baptism sustains to remission the 
relation of a subsequent to a former act, and what fol- 
lows? Clearly, that repentance likewise sustains to 
remission the relation of a subsequent to a former act. 
But this proves too much, and hence is false. But we 
wish to exhibit this position, together with its conse- 
quences, even to the eye, and,' in order to do so, will 
again have recourse to the passage, from which, after 
transposing the clauses as before, we will first omit the 
word " repent," thus: — Everyone of you be baptized 
(&*s) because your sins are remitted. This is exactly Mr. 
Jeter's position, — a tough one, truly. But let us grant 
that it is true, or, rather, that we have at last hit on 
the true meaning of the particle, and that it is unalter 
able. We will now replace the word " repent:" — Every 
one of you repent and be baptized eec remission of sins 
Is the meaning of the particle now altered ? Of course 
not. Let us then bring out its meaning: — Every one 
of you repent and be baptized (^<r) because your sins are 
remitted; or, transposing the terms, Be baptized and 
repent (ets) because your sins are remitted; plainly, 
Repent because your sins are remitted. How absurd ! 
And yet, absurd as it is, this is a strict result from Mr. 
Jeter's method of construing the passage. This result 
of false criticism and false reasoning has never yet been 
fairly met and honorably disposed of by even one of our 
opponents. Indeed, it cannot be. 

It was formerly stated that if ktq be taken literally 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 199 

the present passage is either not intelligible or has a 
very uncertain sense, and that, consequently, a different 
acceptation of the particle is required. Thi^ becomes 
apparent by simply inserting its literal meaning, thus : — 
Eepent and be baptized, every one of you, (etq) into re- 
mission of sins. What can any one collect from the 
expression, repent into remission ? If to English ears it- 
has any meaning at all, it certainly is a most vague and 
uncertain one. Nor does the expression "be baptized 
into remission" yield a sense in any respect better. Even 
conceding (what is doubtful) that the sense of the pas- 
sage might be collected from the primary meaning of 
the particle, still, this is not the sense in which the Holy 
Spirit intended it to be taken, and hence is not the 
sense which is most easily defended. 

The present seems a proper place to sum up the result 
of the two preceding arguments. According, then, to 
the passage still in hand and the rule formerly stated, 
remission of sins, though it may depend on more, can 
never depend on less, than repentance and baptism, these 
being the named conditions. In our first argument it 
was ascertained that remission can never depend on less 
than belief and baptism. From the two arguments, there- 
fore, we conclude that, although it may still depend on 
more, it can never depend on less, than belief, repentance 
and baptism, these being the sum of all the different con- 
ditions named. 

But we shall now present Mr. Jeter's exposition, or 
view, of the passage on which our second argument is 
based. It is contained in the following extract : — " In 
Matt. iii. 11 we have these words : — I indeed baptize you 



200 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

with water unto (ecs) repentance. Here the term can 
not, without gross impropriety, be rendered for or in 
order to. We know that John did not baptize his dis- 
ciples in order that they might repent. He demanded 
of them not only repentance, but fruits meet for repent- 
ance, before he admitted them to baptism. He baptized 
them, not that they might obtain repentance, but as a 
sign or acknowledgment that they had repented. (Matt, 
iii. 8, 9.) Now, in the very sense in which the Har- 
binger baptized his disciples (e^) unto, for, into, repent- 
ance, did Peter command his pentecostal hearers to [let 
the reader note that the word i repent is here suppressed'] be 
baptized (etq) for, unto, into, remission of sins; that is, 
not to procure, but as a sign or acknowledgment of, this 
privilege, which God has graciously and inseparably 
united with repentance and faith/' 

1st. What is here said rests on no law of exegesis 
known to the literary world. It is, as a criticism, false 
and arbitrary. If Mr. Jeter submitted it in candor, he 
deserves to be pitied; if not, to be despised. He knew, 
or should have known, that the passage in Matthew 
differs from that in Acts in the only respect which could 
have required the particle to be rendered alike in both. 
Eender the particle in the former passage as in the lat- 
ter, and the former passage makes nonsense ; render it 
in the latter passage as in the former, and the latter 
passage makes nonsense. Thus : — I indeed baptize you 
with water (eiq) in order to repentance — nonsense ; but, 
repent and be baptized (etq) in order to remission of sins 
— sense good. Eepent and be baptized (ses) because of 
remission of sins — nonsense ; but, I indeed baptize you 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 261 

with water (e^) because of repentance — sense good. 
This is enough to satisfy any thinking person that the 
passages are dissimilar in the very point material to Mr. 
Jeter's criticism, and, consequently, that it is false. We 
add, that w T e accept the view he seems to take of the 
word "repent," not as correct, but merely to test the 
soundness of his criticism. The correct view of that 
term would require a different rendering of the particle. 
But, as this is not a matter now in hand, we give it no 
further notice. 

2d. Why, in offering his criticism, did Mr. Jeter em- 
ploy the three English particles for, unto, and into, 
which are not synonymous, to represent but one par- 
ticle in the Greek ? Did he fear to commit himself, and 
hence seek to render his expression as ambiguous as 
possible ? He knew that to bring his meaning out 
would prove fatal to his criticism; hence he cunningly 
masked it under a trio of particles. 

3d. But why did Mr. Jeter, when he came to apply 
his* criticism and to develop the meaning of the passage, 
suppress the word "repent" ? We commend him to the 
charity which thinks no evil. But he knew, first, that 
Peter commanded his audience to be baptized for the exact 
object for which he commanded them to repent; second, that 
he commanded them to repent in order to remission of sins; 
and, third, that unless the term "repent" were suppressed 
this fact would become apparent and falsify his criticism. 
Hence, he deliberately suppressed the term to conceal 
the weakness of his cause, and in the act betrayed 
the weakness of himself. Such trickery as this in the 
work of an infidel would be denominated base, but in 



202 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the ^v\ ork of a Christian we shall mildly phrase it an 
error. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will have the adroitness 
to say that this was an unintentional omission, or the 
skill to transmute the printer into a scape-goat to carry 
off his sin. Printers certainly err at times, as do other 
men. But there is another class of men singularly 
addicted to erring, always most unintentionally it is 
true, but in all of whose errors there is noticeable this 
remarkable peculiarity, — they never err in favor of the 
adverse party, — accountants (for example) whose books 
exhibit a great many false entries, but never one against 
the interest of the merchant 1 



SECTION III. 

As the basis for our third argument, we subjoin the 
following: — "And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of 
the Lord." 

Candidly, it would seem to be useless to do more than 
merely quote this passage. To misunderstand it may 
not be impossible; but how its import is to be rendered 
more obvious by comment, it is difficult to see. And to 
attempt to defend it against the cavils of those who 
have resolved to reject its teaching would be an idle con- 
sumption of time. Still, the passage is too important to 
be merely quoted and then dismissed. 

There is no diversity of opinion between Mr. Jeter 
and us in regard to the character of the act which Paul 
was commanded to perform. It is agreed on both sides 
that his baptism was real, not metaphorical. Nor can 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 203 

there be any doubt that the term "sins" has here its 
accustomed sense. These points, then, may be dis- 
missed at once. Consequently, the only remaining ques- 
tion to be settled is, what is the meaning of the ex- 
pression "wash away?" or, still more pertinently, what 
connection, if any, does it express between baptism and 
remission of sins? 

That the expression is metaphorical is granted. Sins 
are not washed away : they are remitted. Upon this no 
controversy can arise. But what is there in the ex- 
pression to indicate or suggest this ? The term rendered 
wash away is, in the original, a strong compound verb 
which in its simple form denotes to wash merely. Here, 
however, it is compounded with a particle which signi- 
fies from, denoting the separation of one thing from 
another, and which has its force represented in the ex 
pression by the term away. Hence, in its compound 
form the verb signifies, not to wash simply, but to sepa- 
rate one thing from another by washing. It implies a 
separation, and expresses how it is effected. 

First, then, it implies a separation : and this is indeed 
the radical conception in remission. For not only does 
the term remit, in its underived or Latin form, as well as 
in English, signify to send away, send from, or let go, (in 
which evidently the conception of separation is essen- 
tially involved,) but such, also, is the exact meaning of 
the Greek word which remit translates. Indeed, how 
one thing can be washed away from another, without 
being separated from it, is not conceivable. Hence, we 
conclude that separation — i.e. of sins, or remission — is 



204 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the radical conception in the expression, — the thing for 
which it stands. 

Second: but not only does the expression imply a 
separation; it expresses how it is effected, — namely, by a 
washing. Separation is its radical, unfigurative mean- 
ing, the thing it denotes; and the metaphor consists in 
this : — that the separation is represented as effected by, 
or depending on, a washing, which, it is hardly necessary 
to add, consisted in being baptized. 

But this view, in effect, represents Paul as being com- 
manded to be baptized and thereby to separate himself 
from his sins. Nor can the view be deemed far from 
correct when it is remembered that apolousai (aridlouGai) 
is middle, and is hence to be construed as having this 
force. But how is it that a person can separate himself 
from his sins, when in reality they are separated from 
him, or remitted, as an act of mercy, by our heavenly 
Father? Clearly, by complying with the conditions, 
and in this way alone, on which the separation depends. 

Since, therefore, the conception which lies at the very 
bottom of the expression in hand is separation, and 
since this is the radical idea in remission, we conclude 
that the exact and full force of the passage is, Arise, 
and be baptized, and thereby separate yourself from 
your sins, — put them away; or, (which is evidently 
the sense y) Arise and be baptized, and your sins shall be 
remitted. 

But perhaps a similar expression — similar because 
metaphorical and of the same signification — may assist 
us in understanding the language of Ananias. That the 
expressions blot out and ivash away sins have exactly 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 205 

the same import no scholar or critic will deny. The 
only distinction between them is, that what is repre- 
sented by the one as being blotted out is represented by 
the other as being washed away. They do not represent 
different things, but express the same thing differently. 
Now, when Peter in Solomon's porch said to the people, 
"Kepent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted 
out/' metaphor aside, w^hat did he mean? Obviously, 
Eepent and be converted, that your sins may be remitted. 
Precisely thus, then, must we interpret the expression 
wash away thy sins, — namely, Arise and be baptized, and 
your sins shall be remitted. The two expressions are 
identical in sense, their interpretation the same. 

When we view baptism as a condition on which re- 
mission of sins depends, we have no difficulty in under- 
standing the language of Ananias. Paul's sins were 
not remitted before his baptism. Hence, Ananias com- 
manded him to be baptized and wash them away. But 
when he complied, then God, for Christ's sake, remitted 
them; and, because the remission was made dependent 
on the baptism, the sins remitted are represented as 
being washed away in it. This, to a person of candor 
and common sense, can hardly be said to admit of dispute. 

When, on a subsequent occasion, Paul said to the 
Philippian jailer, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved, Mr. Jeter has no difficulty in discovering 
the intimate dependence of salvation on belief. Nor can 
he deny the conditional nature of belief. He can see no 
more natural fitness in it to procure remission than he 
can in the act of being baptized. And yet when Ananias 
says to Paul, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 

18 



206 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

sins, Mr. Jeter can see no dependence of remission on 
baptism, can see in it nothing which renders it necessary, 
even as a condition, to remission. But an adverse light 
to Mr. Jeter's creed has a singular effect on his vision. 

But let us suppose his theory of remission to be 
correct. Paul's sins, then, were remitted the instant in 
which he believed, and consequently before his baptism. 
At that time, therefore, his sins had no existence what- 
ever. They were simply a nonentity. Indeed, he had 
no sins, — hence, none to be remitted, none to be washed 
away, none to be disposed of in any sense. And yet 
Ananias, the Lord's special messenger, is represented as 
saying to him, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins! Did Ananias, we ask in the name of truth, 
command Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins 
when absolutely he had not one sin remaining ? If the 
theory of Mr. Jeter is correct, it casts over the deed of 
Ananias a painful suspicion; but, if the language of 
Ananias is true, it brands the theory of Mr. Jeter as a 
human invention and false. 

Mr. Jeter has a "symbolic theory of baptism," by which, 
in a very few words, he disposes of the present passage, 
which will be noticed in another place. 



SECTION IV. 

The passage on which we make our fourth argument 
is the following : — "According to his mercy he saved us by 
the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" 

In regard to the expression renewing of the Soly Spirit, 
there exists, we believe, little or no diversity of opinion. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 207 

With one consent, it and the expression begotten by the 
Spirit are allowed to be identical in sense. If they are 
not, the distinction between them may be said to be 
this, — that begotten by the Spirit expresses the fact sim- 
ply, while the other is rather descriptive of it, it being 
a renewing. 

Of this effect or renewing the Holy Spirit is the 
author; hence, it is called a renewing of — i.e. effected by 
— the Spirit. It commences in the enlightenment of the 
mind, and results in a deep and earnest faith in Jesus 
Christ. It comprehends all between the entrance of the 
first ray of heavenly light into the mind of the sinner 
and his first overt act of obedience. It is a renewing of 
the sinner in the inner man, the effects of which become 
apparent in his outward conduct; and, without it, no act 
which he can perform can be truly styled an act of obe- 
dience. Its importance cannot be too weightily empha- 
sized, nor can too much zeal be shown in urging the 
Truth upon the sinner's attention through which it is 
effected. 

But what is the meaning of the expression washing of 
regeneration? That it refers to baptism, or is another 
and descriptive name for it, is almost universally con- 
ceded. This much, then, we might fairly take for 
granted. But this is not the question. The question is 
not, what does it refer to, but what is its meaning? On 
this point nothing is allowed to be taken for granted; but 
why ? Is it because the expression has an uncertain mean- 
ing ? This is not the reason. Is it because its structure is 
so involved as to hide its meaning ? Not at all. Or is it 
an unusual form of speech, which refuses to yield its sense 



, 



208 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

by the common laws of language ? By no means. It con- 
tains a meaning which is not acceptable. This is the reason. 

The only difficulty in the expression seems to lie in 
deciding whether the washing named in it belongs to 
regeneration as an integral part of it, and therefore as 
essential to it, or whether it is not a washing subsequent 
to regeneration, and hence no part of it, — in a word, 
the washing of a person already and completely regene- 
rated. Those who adopt the latter view separate the 
expression, making the term washing refer to one thing, 
and the term regeneration to another; while those who 
adopt the former view, regard the whole expression as 
only a complex name for baptism, and hence as insepa- 
rable; and this view we think to be unquestionably the 
correct one. For, if the expression be separated, to 
what, first, refers the word washing? To baptism, re- 
spond the talent and learning of Christendom. Prom 
this there is hardly a dissenting voice. But to what, 
second, refers the term regeneration? To this absolutely 
no answer can be given. It cannot refer to being be- 
gotten by the Spirit, for this is expressed by the clause re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit: it cannot refer to baptism, for 
this is represented by the word washing. Indeed, accord- 
ing to this view, it is simply an unmeaning redundancy 
with neither sense in it nor reason for its presence. 

But a little attention to the structure of the expres- 
sion, especially to its sense, will assure us not only that 
it is not separable, but that the term " regeneration' ' is 
a mere epithet, serving to qualify the preceding word 
"washing." And this is according to a well-known 
principle in the Greek language. Nouns in the geni- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 209 

tive case (is the principle) are often used in the sense 
of adjectives to express the qualities of both persons 
and things. This is clearly the principle according to 
which the expression is to be resolved or cleared of 
difficulty. The following instances are subjoined as 
illustrative of the principle.* 

1. Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an 
evil heart of unbelief. Here the word "unbelief" is, in 
the original, in the genitive, and is correctly repre- 
sented in English by an adjective, thus : — an evil un- 
believing heart. And so of the remaining instances. 

2. And I say to you, Make to yourselves friends of the 
mammon of unrighteousness: — the unrighteous mammon. 

3. For this cause God gave them up to vile affections : 
— affections of vileness, in the Greek. 

4. "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of 
desolation: — the desolating abomination. 

5. And the lord commended the unjust steward : — in 
the original, steward of injustice. 

6. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, 
and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer : 
— in the Greek, a hearer of forgetfulness. 

7. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers 
washings, and carnal ordinances : — in the original, ordi- 
nances of flesh. 

8. The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that 
now worketh in the children of disobedience, — the dis- 
obedient children. 



* It is proper to state that the principle, not being of universal applica- 
tion, is to be applied with caution. 

18* 



210 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

But these instances are enough. Now, precisely as 
the genitive is used in these instances is it used in the 
expression now in hand, thus : — According to his mercy 
he saved us by the washing of regeneration — or, con- 
verting the term " regeneration' ' into an adjective, a 
regenerating washing — and the renewing of the Holy 
Spirit. 

By the phrase " regenerating washing" is not meant 
a washing which implants any holy principle in the 
heart, or which, in any other way, morally affects the 
inner man ; but merely a washing which completes the 
new birth. The epithet "regenerating" is objection- 
able, we grant, for the reason that it is liable to be mis- 
construed. It is here, however, employed merely to illus- 
trate the principle and for the want of a better term. 

That the conclusion just arrived at is correct may be 
inferred, further, from the ambiguity of the expression 
"washing of regeneration." This may be invariably 
set down as decisive against the correctness of a ren- 
dering. Not that a rendering can be inferred to be 
correct from its not being ambiguous; but, from its 
being ambiguous, its incorrectness may be certainly in- 
ferred. That the expression is ambiguous is evident 
from the uncertain import of the particle — of — which it 
contains. First, it may mean a washing effected by re- 
generation; or, second, a washing belonging to it as 
part of it; or, third, a washing performed on it, — i.e. 
the subjects of it. The particle of has all these accep- 
tations in the following expressions : — The mark of a 
pen, — something effected by it; the point of a pen, — 
something belonging to it as part of it; the mending 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 211 

of a pen, — an act performed on it. This is enough to 
show that the expression is ambiguous. Hence, we infer 
the preceding to be the true meaning of the passage. 

But to what is reference made in the word "saved"? 
or to what does it properly apply? First, it is clear 
that it refers to a salvation then past, then completed. 
Hence, the apostle could speak of it as a matter of his- 
tory. Second, that it is the salvation which occurred 
when Paul ceased to be " foolish, disobedient, deceived, 
&c." Third, that it is the salvation which depends on 
the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and is the first which 
happens after it. But what is this but the remission 
of sins ? This, then, we conclude, is the reference in 
the word, or the thing to which it applies. But this 
salvation depended not alone on the renewing of the 
Holy Spirit. For he saved us by the washing of regenera- 
tion, one thing, and, the renewing of the Holy Spirit, an- 
other. Hence, the washing of regeneration — or bap- 
tism — is essential to the remission of sins, or is one 
of the conditions on which it depends. 

But it is proper now to present Mr. Jeter's expo- 
sition of the passage, which is contained in the follow- 
ing paragraph : — " The phrase 'washing of regeneration' 
is found nowhere in the Scriptures but in the text cited 
from the epistle to Titus. It is generally — not univer- 
sally — supposed to signify baptism. That it does, can- 
not be proved. My own opinion is, that it is exegetical 
of the following words : — c renewing of the Holy Ghost/ 
.Regeneration is called a washing, because it is a moral 
cleansing; and this washing is precisely equivalent to 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The text taa& v * 



212 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

rendered 'the washing of regeneration, even (xaC) the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost.' The Greek particle xai 
is frequently rendered 'even' in the New Testament: 
Matt. viii. 27 ; xxv. 29 ; Mark vi. 12, &c. But, so far 
as this argument is concerned, I will admit that the 
words ' washing of regeneration' mean baptism." 

In this paragraph occur some two or three matters on 
which we shall dwell for a moment. 

First. "It [the phrase, washing of regeneration] is 
generally — not universally — supposed to signify bap- 
tism. That it does, cannot be proved. My own opinion 
is, that it is exegetical of the following words : — renew- 
ing of the Holy Ghost." 

The "general" belief, then, according to Mr. Jeter, is, 
that the washing of regeneration signifies baptism. This, 
in other words, is the belief of the learned world, — the 
orthodox belief; and yet he dissents from it. But 
why? Had this belief and ours differed, would he have 
dissented ? There is something singularly perverse dis- 
played by him in treating this and some other passages. 
When the orthodox belief and ours differ, he grows 
clamorous and urgent for the authority of orthodoxy ; 
but when the orthodox belief and ours agree, then he 
dissents from both. "We have piped to you and you 
have not danced, we have mourned and you have not 
lamented,"* is a severe description of hypocritical folly. 

Second. "Eegeneration is called a washing, because it 
is a moral cleansing; and this washing is precisely 
equivalent to the renewing of the Holy Ghost." 

But regeneration is not called a washing in this or 
any other passage in the Bible. The assertion is not 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 213 

true. It is merely "my opinion" The passage neither 
asserts nor implies that regeneration is a washing. On 
the contrary, it represents the washing as being a wash- 
ing of regeneration, and hence not regeneration itself. 
It is a washing of — i.e. belonging to — regeneration as part 
of it, — something essential to it, without which it is in- 
complete ; but it is not regeneration itself. The part of 
a thing is not the whole. 

Third. "The text may be rendered, the washing of 
regeneration even (xat) the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost/' 

Certainly it may be so rendered ; and so, falsely, may 
every other passage in the Bible. But it cannot be 
correctly rendered and be rendered thus. Mr. Jeter's 
criticism is utterly faulty. It rests on no principle 
whatever. But what is the meaning of the particle xat y 
on which it turns? Literally and primarily it means 
and. This is universally conceded. Now, in trans- 
lating, the most sacred rule in use is this : — to translate 
a word uniformly by its literal and current meaning, 
unless the sense forbids it. But does not the sense of 
the present passage forbid the literal and current mean- 
ing of xcu. If so, why did Mr. Jeter not point it out? 
He knew positively that it did not, and yet he rendered 
the particle even, and in so doing violated the most 
sacred rule known to the science of interpretation. 

True, the particle is rendered even in the passages to 
which he refers; but on what ground? Simply on the 
ground that the sense forbids the literal and current mean- 
ing, and hence requires a different one. This becomes 
evident by merely inserting the literal meaning, thus : 



214 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

■ — "What manner of man is this, that and the winds 
and the sea obey him?" Matt. viii. 27. Clearly, this is 
wrong. The sense forbids the use of and, and hence re- 
quires another word. By inserting even we see what 
word it is, thus: — "What manner of man is this, that 
even the winds and the sea obey him?" and so of the 
other passages referred to. But we cannot produce a 
jar like the preceding by the use of and in the passage 
from Titus. We can read, in harmony with the great 
rule just stated, "He saved us by the washing of re- 
generation and renewing of the Holy Spirit," and the 
reading is smooth, the sense good, and the mind pro- 
foundly convinced that we read correctly. The very 
circumstance which requires the particle to be rendered 
even in the passages referred to is wanting in the present 
one; hence to substitute even for and in it is wholly 
unauthorized. 

SECTION V. 

Our fifth argument is suggested by the following : — 
Ci Wherein [the ark] few, that is eight, souls were saved by 
water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also 
now save us, — not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
but the answer of a good conscience towards God" 

This passage (so exceedingly obscure in the form here 
cited) is susceptible of a much more intelligible render- 
ing, thus: — In which (ark) a few, that is eight, souls were 
saved by water, which also now saves us in its antitype, bap- 
tism, which consists not in putting away fleshly impurity, but 
in seeking a good conscience in God. This rendering is ac- 
cording to the best text of the Greek New Testament 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 215 

extant. A few additional remarks, however, explana- 
tory of it, will not be thought amiss. 

According to the common text, antitype is the subject 
of the verb saves. This, however, is now regarded as in- 
correct ; and the true subject is held to be the relative 
pronoun o. Such is the case in the text now before us. 
With this relative antitype is in apposition, and bap- 
tism with antitype ; and, although a somewhat unusual 
apposition, yet it is attended with no ambiguity. The 
relative is in the neuter gender, agreeing with water as 
its antecedent, — the only noun in the sentence with 
which it can agree. 

The terms rendered putting away and seeking are both 
in the nominative case, and, since no verb is expressed, 
of course to or after one understood. That this is the 
verb is, hardly admits of doubt. It is not necessary, 
however, in order to express the sense of the passage, to 
be so slavishly literal as to indicate these circumstances. 
Hence, in our rendering, we have not done so. 

But on what ground have we substituted the word 
seeking for the word answer? We reply, first, there is a 
necessity for it; for the passage, as it now stands in the 
common version, conveys no intelligible meaning what- 
ever ; indeed, it is simply a jumble of words without 
meaning. Second, it agrees better with the sense of the 
original term. The verb from which the original term 
is derived occurs in the Greek New Testament fifty- 
nine times 5 in fifty-five of which it is rendered either 
by the word ask or by some of its forms ; in two, de- 
manded; in one, desired; and in one, questioned; and 
in every single case should have been rendered either 



216 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

by ask or by some of its forms. "To seek after" is 
given as one of the meanings of the verb, in the best 
lexicon to the Greek Testament we have yet seen. 
Hence, the noun, retaining substantially the same sense, 
must mean either an asking or a seeking; and, since 
seeking gives a clearer and better sense, we therefore 
decide in its favor. Asking is applicable rather to per- 
sons than to things ; hence it is better to say of baptism 
it is a seeking than an asking. 

But why substitute in for towards? We answer, 
Because it gives a clearer sense and accords better with 
the usage of the Greek particle. That it gives a clearer 
sense is obvious at a glance, and hence needs no further 
illustration. The particle in the Greek is ete, which 
seems to have the sense of (ev) in : not that ev; is used 
for ev; but there appears to be the idea of previous 
motion combined with a state of rest, in which case et<; 
has the force of ev. The following is an instance of this 
usage: — " And, leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt 
(eis) in Capernaum. " In such cases the previous motion 
is, by the best critics, supposed to have suggested the 
use of «c'j the real force of the passage being, And, 
leaving Nazareth, he came (eis) into Capernaum, and 
dwelt there. Again, the passage itself in hand supplies 
an instance of the usage. Noah entered into (previous 
motion) the ark; hence he is represented as having 
been saved (eis) in it. In the same manner, the pre- 
vious use of baptism seems to have suggested the use 
of etq, which we have rendered in instead of towards. 
We are baptized (eiq) into Christ ; hence in him we are 
all said to be one. We are baptized («$) into the name 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 217 

of the Father; hence we dwell (ev) in him. Conse- 
quently, since it is by baptism that we enter into him, 
it would seem highly proper to represent it as consist- 
ing in seeking a good conscience (ecs) in him, especially 
when we have full authority for such a use of the 
particle. 

The preceding view of the passage has at least this 
advantage, — that it is perfectly intelligible, as well as 
consistent with what we know to be taught elsewhere ; 
and although it is here rather suggested than insisted 
on, still, we believe it possessed of a high degree of 
certainty. 

But all this has little to do with our argument. The 
ground on which it rests is asserted in the common 
version, — namely, "Baptism doth also now save us" 
From this it is clear that there is a sense in which bap- 
tism saves us, or a salvation which depends on or is 
effected in and by baptism. The question is, What is 
it, or in what does it consist ? First, it cannot be sal- 
vation in its most comprehensive sense ; for it is limited 
to baptism. Second, it is not, be it what it may, a par- 
tial, but a complete, salvation; for baptism "now saves 
us." Hence, previously to baptism it does not exist; 
subsequently it does: but without baptism it cannot 
exist. What, now, is the safest and fairest method of 
ascertaining in what it consists, or, since the passage 
asserts the fact that baptism saves us, how shall we 
determine in what sense ? 

Clearly, the best method of obtaining a correct reply 
to this question is, to ascertain in what sense the word 
saved is used when used in connection with baptism, or 

19 



218 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

what is therein accomplished to which the word is ap- 
plicable. Happily, this is an easy task: — "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." "Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins." Jointly, these pas- 
sages determine, definitely and conclusively, that the 
word "saved," when used in connection with baptism, 
is used to denote remission of sins ; and whatever mean- 
ing it certainly has in these passages it certainly has in 
every other precisely similar passage, and, consequently, 
in the present one. Hence, baptism doth also now save 
us, because therein our sins are remitted. Of the truth 
of this, little doubt can remain, when it is remembered 
that the same apostle on whose language we are now 
commenting commanded an audience to repent and be 
baptized in order to remission of sins. Hence, it may with 
great propriety be represented that baptism consists in 
seeking a good conscience in God, because it consists in 
seeking a conscience freed from sin. 

Of this passage, Mr. Jeter, with characteristic shy- 
ness when a passage disfavors him, says, "The text 
above cited from Peter is one of the most obscure in the 
apostolic epistles. Commentators have been greatly 
perplexed and divided concerning its import. As it is 
not necessary for my purpose, I shall not attempt to 
expound it." 

1. The passage, we grant, is not wholly free from 
difficulty; but that it is one of the most obscure in the 
apostolic epistles, we cannot admit. 

2. That it should perplex some men is not at all to 
be wondered at. Passages perplex from various causes, 
some, the more, the less obscure they are. The present 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 219 

passage asserts that baptism now saves us ; hence, how 
perplexing ! 

3. Certainly it was not necessary to Mr. Jeter's pur- 
pose that he should attempt to " expound" the passage; 
but it extremely concerned his purpose that he should 
let it alone. He has shown his cunning once. 

But, as containing a comment generally on the import 
of the term salvation, but especially, it would seem, on 
its import, as used in connection with baptism, in the 
passages from Titus and 1 Peter, we shall extract from 
Mr. Jeter the following paragraphs : — 

"Do these Scriptures [from Titus and 1 Peter] teach 
that the sins of a believer are remitted in the act of 
baptism ? This is the question under discussion. God 
saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism) and re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost. Baptism doth also now save 
us." 

"The term salvation is of comprehensive import. It 
denotes the whole process by which we are delivered 
from sin and fitted for the enjoyment of heaven. It 
includes a thorough moral renovation, the remission of 
sins, adoption into the family of God, and perseverance 
unto death in the way of holiness. It is commenced in 
repentence, carried forward in sanctification, and will 
be completed by the resurrection from the dead. The 
sincere believer in Christ, even before baptism, is in a 
state of salvation, but his salvation is incomplete. Now, 
God saves us by all the means which he employs to 
instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. The written 
word, the ministry of the word, meditation, prayer, 
baptism, the Lord's Supper, afflictions, are all means by 



220 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which God saves us. We are said to be saved by faith, 
saved by hope, to save ourselves and others : 1 Tim. iv. 10 ; 
to work out our own salvation, Phil. ii. 12. Salvation is 
promised to him that endureth to the end : Matt. xvi. 22. 
Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that 
obey him: Heb. v. 9. And we are saved by baptism. 
All these things have an influence in securing our sal- 
vation, — are among the means by which God, in his 
mercy, carries on and completes the work. Baptism, 
which symbolizes the regenerating influence of the 
Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn acknowledg- 
ment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ, 
is designed and fitted to separate us from the world, im- 
press on us our obligations to Christ, and aid us in the 
pathway to heaven. It certainly, however, does not 
follow from this position that the remission of sins is 
suspended on the act of baptism. This conclusion is 
drawn from the assumption that whatever promotes our 
salvation is essential to the forgiveness of sins, — an 
assumption manifestly false. He that endureth to the 
end shall be saved; but is the believer unpardoned until 
he finishes his race? or is he not pardoned at the com- 
mencement of it? Christians are exhorted to work out 
their own salvation; but are not their sins forgiven before 
the completion of the work? We are saved by baptism, 
not as a condition of obtaining the remission of sins, 
but as one of the means which God employs to perfect 
the work of our salvation, — a means not indispensable 
to that result." 

The sole design of this truthless paragraph is to so 
mystify the word salvation as to render the passages 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 221 

from Titus and Peter in which it occurs of no avail to 
us. The design of its author was not to develop the 
meaning of a term, but to confuse and perplex it, — not to 
render a great point clear, but to exclude a distasteful 
light. Having transcribed the entire paragraph, we 
may now request the attention of the reader more par- 
ticularly to the following points : — 

1. "The term salvation is of comprehensive im- 
port." Sometimes it is, but it has not always the same 
extent of signification. The assertion of Mr. Jeter is 
true in the same sense in which the testimony of a wit- 
ness is true who, being sworn to testify to the whole 
truth, suppresses a part of it. When Paul says the 
gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one 
that believes, he employs the term in its most compre- 
hensive sense, and certainly in a sense much more com- 
prehensive than when he says, the preaching of the 
cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us who 
are saved it is the power of God. In the latter case, it 
is limited to and its import exhausted by an event then 
past, a process then completed; but not so in the former 
case. 

2. "It" (the term salvation) "denotes the whole pro- 
cess by which we are delivered from sin and fitted for 
the enjoyment of heaven." Does it, indeed, always? It 
is charitable to hope that Mr. Jeter believed the assertion 
when he made it, but it is very certain that no one else 
who bestows upon it a moment's reflection will believe 
it. "Baptism doth also now save us." Does the term 
ftere denote the whole process by which we are delivered 

from sin and fitted for heaven? 
19* 



222 REVIEW OF CA.MPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

3. "It" (salvation) "is commenced in repentance, 
carried forward in sanctification, and will be completed 
by the resurrection from the dead." Salvation is com- 
menced in repentance! No one believes it who under- 
stands either the operations of his own mind or the 
teachings of Christianity. An ignorance in the ranks 
of his brethren, profound enough to accept as true this 
and like sentiments, is what has contributed, in no small 
degree, to give to Mr. Jeter's book the brief inglorious 
notoriety it has attained. Nothing more clearly shows 
how much both he and they have yet to learn than the 
tenacity with which they cling to, and the frequency 
with which they reaffirm, this absurd dogma. It crops 
out in his book on more occasions than one. Attention 
is here called to it, not for the purpose of discussing it, 
but merely for the sake of giving to it an emphatic 
denial. 

4. "Now, God saves us by all the means which he 
employs to instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. 
The written word, the ministry of the word, meditation, 
prayer, baptism, the Lord's Supper, afflictions, are all 
means by which God saves us. We are said to be saved 
by faith, — saved by hope, — to save ourselves and others, 
— to work out our own salvation. Salvation is promised 
to him that endureth to the end. Christ is the author 
of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. And 
we are saved by baptism." 

Now, granting that salvation is a process to the com- 
pletion of which faith, hope, baptism, &c. (the items 
severally enumerated by Mr. Jeter) are necessary, does 
it still follow that each of these items has not its own 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 223 

specific value in the accomplishment of the general 
result, — a function to perform not performable by any 
other? — in a word, that baptism is not for the remission 
of sins ? To assume that it does so follow, is to assume 
the very point in dispute. We grant that salvation is a 
process, but still maintain that the exact sense in which 
baptism is necessary to its completion is, that it is for 
the remission of sins. It is no reply to this position to 
say that faith and hope are also necessary to salvation. 
It is freely granted that they are, but not that they are 
necessary in the same sense in which baptism is necessary. 
To assume that such is the case, is just as erroneous as 
to assume that, since life is a process to which eating, 
sleeping, and drinking are necessary, a man lives by 
sleeping in the same sense in which he lives by eating. 
And yet, if there is any argument in the preceding 
extract, this is what it amounts to. 

5. " Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating in- 
fluence of the Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn 
acknowledgment of the remission of sins through faith 
in Christ, is designed and fitted to separate us from the 
world, impress on us our obligations to Christ, and aid 
us in the pathway to heaven." 

That baptism symbolizes the regenerating influence 
of the Spirit of God, is a naked, unsupported assertion. 
It is wholly false. No evidence exists in the word of 
God of its truth. Had such been the case, Mr. Jeter, 
whose fondness for a pedantic .array of texts displays 
itself even on the most trivial occasions, would have 
saved us the pains of seeking that evidence. It may be 
an article in his creed, but it is not a doctrine of the 



224 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Bible; and/ while fidelity to the former may impel him 
to assert it, fidelity to the latter should impel all honest 
men to reject it. JSTor can less than this be said of the 
position that baptism is "a public and solemn acknow- 
ledgment of the remission of sins through faith in 
Christ." Three things, and only three, can be said in 
its defence. It is asserted by Mr. Jeter; it is a tradition 
of his church; it is not, in so many words, pronounced 
by the Bible to be a lie. On these grounds alone it rests. 

6. "It certainly, however, does not follow from this 
position that the remission of sins is suspended on the 
act of baptism. This conclusion is drawn from the 
assumption that whatever promotes our salvation is 
essential to the forgiveness of sins, — an assumption 
manifestly false." 

The assumption is not only manifestly false: it is 
manifestly foolish, and manifestly the assumption of 
nobody but Mr. Jeter. This is not the only occasion on 
which he has constructed a foolish hypothesis for us, 
and then sought to make the impression that some doc- 
trine which we entertain is deducible from no other 
ground. It would have been far more honorable in him 
had he confined himself to positions which we do enter- 
tain, and not have feigned for us those which we do not 
entertain, merely for the sake of deducing from them 
some conclusion which, after all, renders no one half as 
ridiculous as himself. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. 225 

SECTION VI. 

The passage on which we base our sixth argument is 
this : — " Verily } verily, 1 say to you, Except a man be born 
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God." 

This passage we regard as presenting us with a com- 
plete view of the new birth, — as informing us in what 
it consists, or what facts constitute it. And, whenever 
the subject of regeneration is spoken of, we wish it to 
be distinctly understood that the present passage con- 
tains our conception of it. In declaring that " except 
a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," 
the Savior merely propounds the doctrine of the new 
birth generally, in a statement of the necessity of it. 
But in the present passage he states definitively in what 
the new birth consists, reiterating the necessity of it. 
The former passage propounds the doctrine, the latter 
passage explains it That to be born again is to be 
born of water and of the Spirit, does not admit of 
argument. 

The passage was intended, when spoken, to have, not 
a present, but a prospective, bearing. It applied at the 
instant when the Messiah's kingdom commenced, and 
ever afterwards, but not a moment before. 

We cannot agree that the importance of the passage 
can be exaggerated. When the Savior shuts the king- 
dom of heaven against all, except on certain condi- 
tions, those conditions become of transcendent interest. 
Neither flight of fancy nor fertility of imagination can 
invest them with an unreal importance. 



226 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

The passage naturally distributes itself into two 
clauses, each clause comprehending an integral part of 
the new birth, and the two parts exhausting the sub- 
ject. These clauses are, respectively, born of water, born 
of the Spirit. The meaning of these determined, all must 
agree that the question, In what does the new birth con- 
sist ? is settled. As the latter clause has already been 
explained, only the other remains to be examined. 
"What, then, is the meaning of the expression born of 
water? 

In order to decide this question, we must decide, 
first, the previous question, — In what acceptation must 
we take the language of the expression? — a literal or a 
figurative ? 

This question can be discussed best, perhaps, by re- 
solving the expression into the two simple verbal mem- 
bers which compose it, — to wit : born of and water. To 
some this division may seem unnecessarily minute. We 
do not think it so. By thus breaking down the expres- 
sion into these simple members its parts come singly 
into view, by which means each can be subjected to a 
severer, because a more distinct, examination. 

Upon the acceptation in which we are to take the 
member born of, no diversity of opinion exists. It is 
universally agreed to be metaphorical. But what its 
meaning is, is supposed to depend on the acceptation in 
which the term " water" is taken. Are we then to take 
this term in its literal and ordinary acceptation, or in a 
figurative sense? In the latter sense, is responded by 
many. Let us now examine the hypothesis implied in 
this response, which, being concisely expressed in the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 227 

form of a proposition, is this : — The term "water" is figu- 
rative. This is a tough proposition. It has led its ad- 
vocates into great extremes. No effort has ever yet been 
made to defend it, upon which the stain of iniquity does 
not rest. Conceived at first in a spirit of unbelief, it has 
since been advocated only in crime. The uncorrupted 
heart spews it out as a vile conception, and the scorn of 
reason lies on it. Not until the mind has been robbed 
of its independence by the tyranny of some human 
creed, or stricken by some fatal paralysis, will it suffer 
the noisome thing to lodge within it. But it is proper 
to subject it to a still further examination. 

Where the literal and current acceptation of a term 
happen to be the same, as is the case with the term 
"water," the presumption is, that such a term, wher- 
ever found, is used in that acceptation. And such, more- 
over, is the force of this presumption, that nothing can 
set it aside except the most stringent necessity. Either 
such must be the nature of the case about which the 
term is employed, that it cannot be taken literally, or 
some most obvious circumstance must attend it, indi- 
cating that it is employed metaphorically; otherwise it 
has certainly, in every single instance where used, its 
current signification. 

But is not the nature of the new birth such — the case 
about which the term "water" is employed — as to for- 
bid the term being taken literally? If not, then it has 
its literal sense. Now, we must, of course, before we 
can infer any thing from the nature of the case, know 
what the case itself is. Here, now, at the very outset, 
we encounter a serious difficulty. For, until the import 



228 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

of the term " water" is settled, the meaning of the new 
birth remains doubtful. This term forms one of a com- 
pact assemblage employed by the Savior to describe the 
new birth. Until, therefore, we settle its meaning, we 
remain ignorant, to the full extent of its individual sig- 
nification, of what it serves jointly to describe. Hence, 
from the nature of that thing so described we can infer 
nothing to set aside the literal acceptation of the term. 
In the literal acceptation, therefore, it stands. 

But is not the term attended by some obvious cir- 
cumstance indicating that it is employed metaphori- 
cally? That it is not is evident even to the eye. 
Clearly, it was not the Savior's intention, in mention- 
ing water, to institute a comparison between it and any 
thing else. Had such been the case, he would have pre- 
ceded the term by some such particle as like, so, or as. 
He does not say, Except a man be born like, born so, or 
born as; but, Except a man be born of water. Hence, 
comparison is out of the question. 

Nor can the term be employed metaphorically. Of 
words thus used (and metaphor is limited to single 
words unattended by any sign of comparison) there are 
two elasses: — 1st, such as, on being pronounced, sug- 
gest their meaning instantly; 2d, those in which the 
meaning, even after they are pronounced, remains hid 
until it is brought out by some added explanation. The 
following are instances of these two classes : — 1st. "Go 
ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do 
cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall 
be perfected." Here the word "fox" is applied to 
Herod metaphorically ; yet, on hearing it pronounced, 



REVIEW OF CAMPEBLLISM EXAMINED. 229 

we as instantly collect its meaning as had the Savior 
said, Go and tell that cunning monarch, &c. 2d. " De- 
stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 
In this instance the word " temple" is employed meta- 
phorically, and its meaning is completely hid until it is 
added, "but he spake of the temple of his body." Now, 
to which of these classes (and there are no others) does 
the term "water" belong? Not to the former; for, on 
being pronounced, it suggests, on the hypothesis that it 
is metaphorical, absolutely no meaning at all; nor yet 
to the latter, for no explanatory clause is added. Hence, 
the term is not metaphorical. 

But, again, a term is employed metaphorically when 
applied to a thing which resembles, in one or more re- 
spects, what it usually denotes, and because it is desired 
to suggest that resemblance. Now, to what, supposing 
the term "water" to be metaphorical, is it applied, in 
the passage in hand, which resembles the material ele- 
ment we call water. The human mind can conceive 
of nothing. Yet there must be something; for, even 
granting the term to be metaphorical, it still has 
some real meaning; but what it is will never be deter- 
mined. 

From all the preceding premises, therefore, we con- 
clude that the acceptation in which the term "water" 
is to be taken is its literal and current acceptation; 
that it denotes, in other words, simply the material ele- 
ment we call water. 

It is proper to note, however, that the clause "born 

of water" contains a metaphorical term, — to wit, born. 

Literally, this term, as is well known, denotes the event 
20 



230 REVIEW Or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which brings man into the present life. But here it is 
employed not literally. It is employed metaphorically; 
and, hence, must represent an event which, in one or 
more respects, resembles its literal signification. What, 
now, is that event ? or, without separating the terms, 
what signifies the expression born of water? 

1. If there is any confidence to be reposed in the 
talent and learning of all ages since Christ, this question 
is settled : — the expression signifies baptism But it is 
proper to have before us the precise point to which this 
testimony is adduced. It is not adduced to settle the 
value or meaning of baptism. It is adduced merely to 
show what thing the expression "born of water" denotes, 
not what the value or significance of that thing is. 
These are different questions; hence, testimony fully 
adequate to settle the one might be very inadequate to 
settle the other. 

2. Water is never present in any act connected with 
the kingdom of Christ except one. But in that one it is 
always present, and from it never absent. That act is 
baptism. But in the expression "born of water," water 
is present. Hence, it must be m baptism, since water 
can be present in nothing else. Baptism, therefore, 
must be the thing denoted by the expression born 
of water. 

3. The term born is metaphorical ; yet it must signify 
something which, in one or more respects, resembles its 
literal meaning. This something, moreover, must be 
connected with water. Now, in all Christianity, what 
is there which, even in one respect, bears the slightest 
resemblance to the literal meaning of "born," except 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 231 

baptism ? In baptism we come out of the water, and that 
to live a new life. Is not this being born of water ? 

4. If the expression "born of water" does not signify 
baptism, then its meaning is wholly indeterminate. 
Hence, no living man can say whether he is or is not in 
the kingdom of God. But the Savior never intended to 
leave man in doubt on so vital a question. We hence 
infer that the expression is determinate, and signifies 
baptism. 

It is now easy to complete our argument. There are 
but two kingdoms on earth in which men exist, — the 
kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. These two 
kingdoms are separated from each other by one and the 
same line. All on this side are saints, all on that sin- 
ners; and all are on that side until born of water and 
of the Spirit : then, all thus born are on this. We can 
no more conceive of a saint in the kingdom of Satan 
than we can of a sinner in the kingdom of God; nor 
can we any more conceive of a saint without his being 
born of water and of the Spirit than we can of a sin- 
ner who is. The instant in which a man's sins are for- 
given he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the 
kingdom of God. But he passes from the kingdom of 
Satan into the kingdom of God the instant in which he 
is born of water and of the Spirit. Hence in that 
instant his sins are forgiven. 

But let us suppose a part of this to be denied. Let 
us suppose it to be maintained that a man, though born 
of water and of the Spirit, might still be in the kingdom 
of Satan. What is true of one man in this respect 
might certainly be true of all. Hence all men, though 



232 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

born again, might still be in the kingdom and under 
the dominion of Satan. Clearly, this is false. 

From all of which we conclude that a man's sins are 
remitted the instant in which he is born of water and 
of the Spirit, or, inverting the expressions, the instant 
in which, being begotten by the Spirit, he is immersed. 

Finally, in order to establish, if possible, still more 
conclusively the identity of baptism and being born 
of water, and also to exhibit the perfect agreement 
between what the Savior said to Nicodemus and what 
he taught in the great commission, we submit the 
following : — He that believes and is baptized is saved : 
he is therefore in the kingdom of God. Hence, he that 
believes and is baptized is born of water and of the 
Spirit; for otherwise he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God. The only way to escape the force of this, is to 
deny either that he that believes and is baptized is 
saved, or that he is therefore in the kingdom of God. 

It is now proper to examine the main points in what 
Mr. Jeter has to say on the present passage. Indeed, 
we regret that the length of his disquisition forbids our 
transcribing it entire ; for by a sensible and candid man 
it needs only to be seen to be despised. Even from 
Mr. Jeter it would be difficult to produce any thing more 
corrupt. Take, for example, the first paragraph : — 

"The reformers quote this text [John iii. 5] with 
great confidence in support of their views. Let us can- 
didly examine it. The phrase yevv^drj l£ Sdarog — born 
of water — does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. 
Its import must be learned from the language itself, 
the context, and the current teaching of revelation. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 233 

What is its meaning? Mr. Campbell maintains that it 
means baptism, and founds his argument for baptismal 
remission wholly on this interpretation. Concerning 
this opinion I have several remarks to offer/ ' 

Did Mr. Jeter not know, when he said Mr. Campbell 
maintains that the phrase, born of water, means bap- 
tism, and founds his argument for baptismal remission 
wholly on this interpretation, that he was deliberately 
littering in the face of the world what is not true? 
Whatever he may have known or thought, it matters 
not : he has done so. It is painful to have to speak thus 
of him; but we are not at liberty to suppress the truth 
in order to avoid saying that he has not spoken it. On 
page 261 of his book he says, "I will now endeavor 
briefly to show that the passages of Scripture princi- 
pally relied on by Mr. Campbell for the support of his 
doctrine utterly fail of establishing it." Now, let the 
reader note that Mr. Jeter is going to examine the pas- 
sages principally relied on by Mr. Campbell to support his 
doctrine. He then quotes the following: — 1. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 2. Eepent and 
be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost. 3. Jesus answered, Terily, 
verily, I say to thee, Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God. 4. Christ also loved the church, and gave himself 
for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word. Of which Mr. Jeter 
says, "This text is adduced by Mr. Campbell with great 
confidence in support of his cherished theory, that sins 

2i* 



234 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

are remitted in the very act of immersion." 5. Accord- 
ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regene- 
ration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 6. The like 
figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us 
(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
answer of a good conscience toward God) by the re- 
surrection of Jesus Christ. Here, now, are no less than 
six passages on which, it seems, Mr. Campbell principally 
relies in support of his " cherished theory;" and yet of 
the single clause born of water, Mr. Jeter says, Mr. 
Campbell maintains that it means baptism, and founds 
his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this 
interpretation ! 

Of the " several remarks" offered by Mr. Jeter on 
Mr. Campbell's interpretation of the clause "born of 
water," we shall transcribe the chief parts of only two 
or three. 

First. "It [the position that the phrase "born of 
water" means baptism] makes the answer of Christ 
to Nicodemus false. The kingdom of God must mean 
the church of Christ on earth, or the state of heavenly 
glory. This position, it is presumed, will not be called 
in question. Now, it is not true that none enter into 
the visible church on earth who are not born of the 
Spirit. In the purest churches there are members who 
are not regenerated. In the apostolic churches there 
were some who were not properly of them. 'They 
went out from us/ said John; 'but they were not of 
us ; for, if they had been of us, they would have con- 
tinued with us/ " 

Now, we profoundly believe the expression "king- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 235 

dom of God/' in John iii. 5, means the church of Christ 
on earth, — taking the term "church" in its largest 
sense; and yet we assert, that into that kingdom no 
man, woman, or child ever yet entered unless born 
of water and of the Spirit. When the Savior says of a 
thing it cannot be, we pronounce it impossible. And, 
as to "the purest churches" containing members who 
are not regenerated, — which may be the case, — it is 
easily explained on the simple principle, that even the 
purest churches are not wholly pure. But this is not 
the point in dispute. The Savior does not say, " except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into a church partly pure and partly not." He 
is speaking not of a church, nor of churches, but of the 
church. A man may be in a church, and yet not in the 
church ; but in t he church he cannot be unless born of 
water and of the Spirit. Nor can he be even in a 
church of Christ, except in appearance only, unless thus 
born. Indeed, the very language of John, when, in 
speaking of certain members, he says, " They went out 
from us, but they were not of us," clearly implies that 
they had been members not in reality but in appearance 
only. 

Second. "Nor is it true, that none enter into the 
heavenly glory who are not baptized. From this con- 
clusion, though it follows legitimately from his doc- 
trine, Mr. Campbell himself recoils. The Savior's decla- 
ration, then, as interpreted by the reformers and many 
others, is not true." 

Mr. Campbell does not believe that the expression 
" kingdom of God," in John iii. 5, means the kingdom 



236 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED* 

of ultimate glory ; neither does he teach that none will 
be saved except those who enter the church on earth. 
On the contrary, he teaches that the following classes 
will be saved without entering it: — 1. All infants. 
2. All idiots. 3. Many heathens. 4. Many honest peo- 
ple who are kept in profound ignorance of their duty 
by the teaching of such men as Mr. Jeter. From what 
doctrine, then, of Mr. Campbell, does the " conclusion" 
from which he " recoils" follow so legitimately? The 
reply is, none. All Mr. Campbell teaches is, that none 
who are responsible, and to whom the gospel is preached, 
can, unless born of water and of the Spirit, enter into 
the church on earth ; and that those who, under these 
circumstances, refuse to enter it, have no assurance that 
they shall ever enter the kingdom above. 

Third. " There is but one method of evading this con- 
clusion. It is sometimes affirmed, for the purpose of 
avoiding it, that a man cannot constitutionally enter into 
the kingdom of God except he is baptized, and born 
of the Spirit." 

By whom it is so affirmed we know not ; but it is not 
by Mr. Campbell and his brethren. They affirm that a 
man, unless born of water and of the Spirit, cannot, in 
any sense, enter into the kingdom of God. They neither 
say constitutionally nor unconstitutionally; but, unquali- 
fiedly, that he cannot enter at all unless thus born. 

Fourth. "If the phrase 'born of water' means zm- 
mersion, the passage in which H is found yields no sup- 
port to the doctrine of baptismal remission. If the king- 
dom of God means, as Mr. Campbell understands it 
to mean, the reign of Messiah on earth, — the visible 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 23' r 

church, — then the text proves merely that a man cannot 
enter the church without baptism, and leaves the sub- 
ject of the remission of sins wholly untouched/' 

But what is the passage in which the phrase is found ? 
It is this : — "Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, 
this text certainly teaches, not, simply, that a man can- 
not enter into the kingdom of God without being born 
of water, but that he cannot enter into it without being 
born of both water and the Spirit. But does it leave 
the subject of the remission of sins wholly untouched ? 
When a man is born of water and of the Spirit, are his 
sins still unremitted ? 

Fifth. " So far as this passage teaches us, a man may 
be pardoned befbre, or after, as well as in, the act of im- 
mersion. It has no relevancy to the subject under dis- 
cussion." 

This is most unfair. So far as the passage teaches 
a man cannot enter into the kingdom of God without 
being born of both water and the Spirit. Now, may 
he be pardoned before being thus born, or after, as well 
as when thus born ? This is the question. If he may 
be pardoned before being thus born, we ask, how long 
before — one year or ten — and on what conditions? or, 
if he may be pardoned after, how long after — ten years 
or fifty — and on what conditions ? Will Mr. Jeter favor 
the world with an answer to these questions? Mr. 
Campbell argues that a man is pardoned the instant in 
which he is born of water and the Spirit, — the instant 
in which these two events are jointly consummated, 
and consequently — since to be born of water is to be 



238 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

immersed — the instant in which he is begotten by the 
Spirit and immersed. And, unless a man can be par- 
doned before or after the joint happening of these two 
events, his argument is overwhelming. True, being 
begotten by the Spirit is precedent to being immersed, 
but then the value of each depends on the two as con- 
current, and not as separate, events. 

Sixth. "But what does the text under discussion 
mean ? It is not incumbent on me to show its mean- 
ing. I have proved that it does not refer to baptism, 
and that, if it does, it fails to support the doctrine of 
baptismal remission: this is sufficient for my purpose. 
I will, however, perform a work of supererogation. ' I 
will quote on this subject a passage from a sermon of 
the Eev. James Saurin, formerly pastor of the French 
church at the Hague, celebrated alike for his learning, 
eloquence, and piety! The phrase, says this incompa- 
rable writer, to be born of water and of the Spirit, is 
a Hebraical phraseology, importing to be born of spiritual 
waters 

Whatever Mr. Saurin may have been in learning or 
in eloquence is a matter of no consequence here. He 
has offered an insult, in the instance in hand, to the 
word of God, which no term but shocking will describe. 
Judging from the present specimen, ho stands alone in 
this respect, the gentlemen excepted who cites and 
indorses his language. To be born of water and of the 
Spirit imports to be born of spiritual water! Now, let 
not the reader conclude from this that Mr. Jeter is 
impious enough to ridicule the passage or daring enough 
to assert outright that it is a lie. Such is not the case. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 239 

.All he means is, that, when the Savior says, "Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God," neither water nor Spirit is 
meant. True, the Savior says water and Spirit; but 
then Mr. Jeter knows perfectly that he meant neither. 
Hence, all the passage means is, Except a man be born 
of spiritual water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God! 



SECTION VII. 

Our seventh argument is suggested by the follow- 
ing: — "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for 
it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of water by the word. n 

That the phrase by the word is, in construing the pas- 
sage, to be joined with the verb sanctify, is so obviously 
true that nothing need be urged in its defence, — the 
proper collocation of the words being, Christ also loved 
the church, and gave himself for it, that, having cleansed 
it by the washing of water, he might sanctify it by the 
word. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is 
truth." The following rendering of the passage we 
extract from a recent work exhibiting in many respects 
the neatest taste and most accurate scholarship: — 
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
that, having purified it by the water wherein it is washed, 
he might hallow it by the indwelling of the word of 
God." 

But what signifies the expression cleansed it by the 
washing of water? This question can be best answered^ 



240 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

perhaps, by determining separately the signification of. 
the clauses washing of water, and cleansed. 

First, then, what signifies the clause washing of water f 
If, as was urged in the preceding section, there is any 
confidence to be reposed in the learning and discrimina- 
tion of the first class of critics, and that, too, in a case 
in which no interested motives can be presumed to have 
swayed their judgment, this question is settled. The 
clause signifies baptism. True, Mr. Jeter feigns to think 
its import doubtful, but why, none can mistake. He is 
pledged to oppose, right or wrong, whatever favors us; 
hence, the more irrefragable our proof, the more vehe- 
ment his denial. 

That the term water, or, more correctly, the water, as it 
is in the original, has here its hard Saxon meaning, is 
not a disputable point. Joining to this the word wash- 
ing, or, better still, the washing, thereby making the wash- 
ing of or in the water, or the water in which the church 
(the members of it) has been washed, can any one whose 
soul is not steeped in error be in doubt as to what the 
apostle means ? 

There is but one rite under Christ to which water is 
absolutely in all cases essential, and to which all who 
j re members of his church have submitted. That rite 
is baptism. Here, however, water is present, — water in 
which the church is washed; hence, since the church 
comes in contact with water in no rite but baptism, 
baptism is, or, rather, of necessity must be, what the 
apostle refers to when he says the washing of water. 

Second. But what signifies the term cleansed? We 
can readily understand why the expression washing of 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 241 

water should have suggested it; but the question is, 
What does it mean ? — a question which we think it not 
difficult to answer. In the original, both the verb and 
its derivatives signify to cleanse or purify generally. 
But the present is not a general but a special cleansing, 
— a cleansing limited to persons, and effected in the wash- 
ing of water. Now, in what special sense are persons 
cleansed in the washing of water? Clearly, they are 
not therein cleansed from the leprosy; neither therein 
is any error corrected or vice reformed. They are therein 
cleansed from sin. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins. Eepent, and be baptized, in order to the remis- 
sion of sins. These passages determine most conclusively 
in what sense a person is cleansed in the washing of 
water. Three times certainly, in the New Testament, 
is the term cleansing, either as a verb or noun, employed 
to express a cleansing from sin. A cleansing from sin, 
then, is, we conclude, precisely what is effected in the 
washing of water. 

Of the much that Mr. Jeter has to say on this passage, 
but little is worthy of notice, and even that little, of but 
slight notice. In speaking of the word cleansed, (p. 270,) 
he says, "In one place, the word probably refers to the 
removal of guilt from the conscience by the blood of 
Christ. (Heb. ix. 14.) In every other passage where it 
relates to the redemption of man it denotes a moral 
renovation." 

The object of this assertion is to create the impression 
that the word cleansed is nowhere in th^STew Testament 
employed to signify a cleansing from sin, and, conse- 
quently, not in the passage in hand. But the following 

* 21 Q 



242 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

passages, in one of which the word occurs in the form 
of a noun, in the other in that of a verb, (a circumstance 
not in the least affecting its application,) will show how 
much confidence is to be reposed in the assertion, — 
" The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all 
sin." 1 John i. 7. "But he that lacketh these things is 
blind, and cannot see far off, and hath forgotten that he 
was purged from his old sins" 2 Pet. i. 9. 

"If," says Mr. Jeter, "the phrase washing of water 
means baptism, then tho text teaches, not the remission 
of sins in the act of baptism, but rather baptismal re- 
generation and sanctification. At any rate, it will be 
the business of those who contend for that meaning of 
the phrase to free the passage from a consequence which 
is exceedingly plausible, if it is not legitimate." 

First. The "text" does not ascribe sanctification to 
the washing of water. It is the cleansing alone which 
is effected in the water. Sanctification is ascribed to 
the word. And this repels a plebeian allusion of Mr. 
Jeter to something which he with characteristic grace 
styles "the Bethany dialect" 

Second. But suppose the passage does teach the doc- 
trine of baptismal regeneration : what then ? Shall the 
passage be rejected because it teaches the doctrine? Or 
shall we attempt to make it teach another doctrine? 
If the passage teaches the doctrine, then the doctrine is 
true. Or does Mr. Jeter set himself up to be judge of 
what the divine word ought to teach, and then, because 
it does not teach to his liking, compel it to teach differ- 
ently? This is not the first instance in which this im- 
plication has escaped his pen. He too clearly reveals, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 243 

on more occasions than one, that the ground of his faith 
is not the Bible, but the suggestions of his corrupt imagi- 
nation. His creed contains but a single article : — Where 
the Bible and his whims agree, the Bible is true : where 
the Bible and his whims differ, the Bible is false. 

But the "text" does not teach — even conceding that 
the phrase washing of water signifies baptism, as we 
profoundly believe it does— what Mr. Jeter affects to 
think so "exceedingly plausible." Even a child can be 
made to understand that whatever is ascribed to the 
washing of water or baptism is ascribed to it merely 
as a condition, on compliance with which, whatever is 
so ascribed is conferred by our heavenly Father as a 
matter of grace or mercy. A position so obvious as this 
needs no further comment. 



SECTION VIII. 

Our eighth argument is derived from the following : — 
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is 
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for 
ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Chrisfs, then 
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." 

Certainly, the expression "in Christ" is not to be taken 
literally; and yet there can exist little or no doubt as 
to its import or the relation which it expresses. Now, 
we maintain that the very fact that we enter into Christ 
by baptism, or into the relation which this language ex- 
presses, involves the connection between baptism and 
the remission of sins for which we contend. 



244 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

That the instant in which a person becomes an "heir 
according to promise/' he becomes a Christian, or is for- 
given, can hardly be supposed to admit of argument. 
To suppose a person an "heir" and yet not forgiven, or 
forgiven and yet not an heir, involves a contradiction, 
if not in words, at least in fact. But when do we be- 
come heirs? The reply is, when we become Abraham's 
children ; not according to the flesh certainly, but when 
we are constituted such. But when do we become 
Abraham's children? Certainly when we become 
Christ's; and we become Christ's when in him, and not 
before. For, says the apostle, you are all one in 
Christ, and, if Christ's, (which you are if in him,) then 
are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
promise. 

Now, what persons alone are in Christ ? As many, is 
the reply, as have been baptized into Christ, and not one 
t more. If, now, none out of Christ are forgiven, (and let 
him who so affirms prove it,) and if all in him are, then 
the very act of entering into him makes the difference 
between the forgiven and the unforgiven person. If 
there is any value in implication, this is conclusive. 

Again, out of Christ alone do the distinctions exist 
between Jew and Greek, bond and free, male and female. 
Now, not for a moment can it be doubted that the in- 
stant in which these distinctions cease to exist is the 
instant in which we are forgiven. These are worldly 
distinctions, and cease to exist only when we cease to 
be of the world, which happens the instant in which we 
are forgiven. Now, that the instant in which these dis- 
tinctions cease to exist is the instant in which we are 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. 245 

baptized into Christ, is positively certain. Hence, 
hardly less certain is it that in that instant we are 
forgiven. 

' But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say, are we not all the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ? Certainly we 
are all the children of God by faith in Christ ; for it is 
by faith that we are led to be baptized into him when 
alone we become his ; and it will hardly be said that we 
become the children of God before we become Christ's. 



SECTION IX. 

As the basis of our ninth and last argument we cite 
the following : — "And he said. Sirs, what must I do to be 
saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." 

This passage is cited, not so much to make it the basis 
of an argument, as to show that it warrants no conclu- 
sion at variance with the conclusions now arrived at 
from the preceding arguments. 

The question then to be considered is, Does the pas- 
sage teach that salvation depends on faith alone ? Mr. 
Jeter is constrained to admit that it does not. He con- 
cedes that it implies a condition which it does not name; 
but on what ground does he maintain that it implies but 
one ? One, certainly, is all it names ; but if it implies 
others, why not ten as well as one ? To assert that it 
implies but one is the language of arbitrariness and not 
of criticism. Mr. Jeter concedes that it implies repent- 
ance ; but why ? If on the ground that repentance is 
taught elsewhere, so is baptism ; but if on the ground 

21* 



246 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

that faith and repentance are necessarily united, we 
deny the position, and assert that they are necessarily 
not united. If belief cannot exist without repentance, 
why does the word of God ever enjoin repentance ? In 
that case belief alone need be enjoined, since, if a man 
believe, he must of necessity repent. The very fact that 
the word of God enjoins belief in one command, repent- 
ance in a second, and baptism in a third, proves that 
belief and repentance are as distinct as belief and bap- 
tism. Poor, indeed, are his conceptions, as well of the 
workings of his own mind as of the teachings of Holy 
Writ, who affirms to the contrary. The truth is, that 
belief not only precedes repentance, but is the very 
ground of it. From repentance we may certainly infer 
belief, but from belief not certainly repentance. 

Mr. Jeter's position that belief implies repentance, but 
not baptism, rests on no foundation worthy of the name. 
It is an insult to reason no less than to revelation. Had 
it suited his purpose to exclude repentance, he would 
have done so with as little compunction as he excludes 
baptism. 

The obvious reason why the apostle's injunction in- 
cluded only belief is, that the jailer, being ignorant of 
his duty, needed to be taught the whole of it, which, in 
all cases, begins with belief. But, being properly 
taught in this respect, every other duty would be, by 
a person in his state of mind, promptly complied with 
as soon as pointed out. We are not, however, to con- 
clude, because baptism was not commanded, that it was 
therefore not necessary, but simply that it was not 
necessary to command it ; or, rather, that when com- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 247 

manding the first duty it was not necessary, in the 
same sentence, to command every other. Neither are 
we to conclude, because the design of baptism is not in 
every instance stated, that it is not therefore necessary 
to the remission of sins. The Apostle Peter, in Solo- 
mon's porch, did not command his audience to believe, 
not because belief is not necessary, but simply because, 
under the circumstances, it was not necessary to com- 
mand it. Neither did Paul, when enjoining upon the 
jailer his first duty, command him either to repent or 
be baptized in order to the remission of sins; but how 
illogical to infer that therefore neither is necessary to 
that end ! 

Whatever an apostle, in any case, commanded for sal- 
vation or remission, became by that very fact essential 
to salvation in every case; and, although it should 
never have been mentioned again as necessary, its value 
would not have been in the least affected by that cir- 
cumstance. One command, never repeated a second 
time, is enough to establish forever a duty, and a single 
expression, never again reiterated, enough to define and 
fix its value ; but a thousand omissions to mention these 
subsequently are insufficient to affect either. The 
Apostle Peter commanded an audience to repent and be 
baptized in order to the remission of sins, which alone, to 
say nothing of other corroborative passages, forever 
fixed the value of both repentance and baptism, and, 
though neither had ever been mentioned again, this 
would still be their value. 

But, waiving all more exact inquiries, upon what 
broad basis can we place the salvation of the jailer 



248 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which, as a precedent, will leave no doubt in any 
mind ? The facts in his case are these : — he heard the 
Truth, believed it, and was baptized the same hour of 
the night. The law in his case was this : — he that be- 
lieves and is baptised shall be saved. Upon this view of 
the case not a doubt can possibly arise. Why, then, 
stop short of absolute certainty where the interests of 
eternity are at stake ? 

But here we must close our arguments upon the con- 
nection between baptism and the remission of sins. 
And, while we regret that our limits will not allow us 
to extend them further, we confess we are not sensi- 
ble, every thing considered, that such extension is de- 
manded. Some matters which have been omitted alto- 
gether might, perhaps, have been introduced and dwelt 
upon with profit ; and yet even these might have added 
length to the present chapter without deepening the 
conviction it is intended to produce. A few points 
touched upon might have been treated, and with ad- 
vantage, as we conceive, with greater fullness of detail ; 
but even here we have felt that something of import- 
ance might, with propriety, be sacrificed to brevity. 
Upon the whole, the subject is submitted to the con- 
siderate judgment of the reader, in the firm persuasion 
that if examined in the light of the preceding passages 
and arguments based thereon, as well as in the light of 
his own calm reason, he cannot fail to arrive at the con- 
clusion that the position for which we contend enjoys 
the clear and certain sanction of Holy Writ. 



REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 249 



CHAPTEE VIII. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDING DOCTRINE OP REMISSION 
CONSIDERED. 

SECTION I. 
Objection First. " Baptism, according to the 'an- 
cient gospel/ is not the figure or formal acknowledg- 
ment of the remission of sins, but the indispensable, 
and, it would seem, the only, condition of obtaining it. 

Is this scheme of forgiveness scriptural ? Is 

baptism, like repentance and faith, an indispensable con- 
dition of the remission of sins ? Let the reader notice, 
— -first, that this scheme of remission flatly contradicts 
plain and numerous Scripture testimonies. These testi- 
monies, or specimens of them, I have already adduced. 
Now, it is a sound and admitted principle of Biblical in- 
terpretation, that the Scriptures should be construed in 
harmony with themselves. The obscure must be eluci- 
dated by the clear, and the figurative by the literal. It 
is impossible for words to express more clearly, point- 
edly, and emphatically, than do the Scriptures, that God 
has suspended the forgiveness of sins on the exercise of 
faith. Take, for an illustration, the words of Christ to 
the Jewish Eabbi : — 'He that believeth on him (the 
Son) is not condemned/ and is, consequently, pardoned 
or justified. Now, baptism for the remission of sins — a 
phrase susceptible of different interpretations — must be 



250 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

construed in harmony with this unambiguous language 
of the great Teacher. And the remark is true of all the 
texts under consideration." 

In this extract, which contains Mr. Jeter's leading 
and certainly his most serious objection, occur several 
things which we think it best to single out and notice 
separately. 

1. " Baptism is the indispensable, and, it would seem, 
the only, condition of obtaining remission." 

Candidly, we are not seldom at a loss to know how 
to characterize some of Mr. Jeter's assertions without 
transcending the limits which courtesy imposes. To 
call this assertion a downright falsehood would be too 
harsh, and to call it the truth would be a falsehood. 
Nameless, then, we let it stand. Mr. Campbell main- 
tains (and Mr. Jeter is perfectly acquainted with the 
fact) that there are three conditions on which remission 
of sins depends, — to wit: belief, repentance, and bap- 
tism. Wherefore, then, the preceding false and slan- 
derous assertion ? 

2. "Is baptism, like repentance and faith, an indis- 
pensable condition of the remission of sins?" 

In what cases the Savior will dispense with a con- 
dition to which he has required all to whom the gos- 
pel is preached to submit, is a question the decision 
of which we are not bold enough to undertake. The 
Savior himself has not decided it, neither have the 
apostles. We should tremble to enter eternity in the 
gloom of their silence. 

3. "This scheme of remission flatly contradicts plain 
and numerous Scripture testimonies." 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 251 

This is a grave charge, and, if true, certainly the 
" scheme" against which it is urged merits universal 
condemnation. Has Mr. Jeter sustained the charge? 
We shall now examine what he alleges in its defence. 

1. "It is impossible for words to express more clearly, 
pointedly, and emphatically, than do the Scriptures, 
that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins on the 
exercise of faith." 

Substituting, for the ridiculous expression "the exer- 
cise of faith," simply faith, and every word of this is 
granted. But it is certainly possible for words to ex- 
press most clearly a very different proposition, — one 
which the Scriptures do not express, and which is the 
sole ground on which Mr. Jeter's objection rests, — ■ 
namely, that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins 
on faith alone. This proposition the Scriptures do 
not express, for the simple reason that they express 
nothing which is false \ and this is the only proposition 
which our " scheme" of remission contradicts. 

2. "The phrase 'baptism for the remission of sins' is 
susceptible of different interpretations." 

If the phrase, as it stands in Mr. Jeter's assertion, 
were the whole of the phrase in the word of God, then, 
perhaps, there might be some foundation for his remark. 
But such is not the case. The phrase in the word of 
God is not baptism for the remission of sins, but repent- 
ance and baptism for the remission of sins. There are 
no two interpretations of which this phrase is sus- 
ceptible. Whatever repentance is for, baptism is for; 
and whatever baptism is for, repentance is for. Conse- 
quently, since repentance is for — that is, is necessary to — 



252 REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM examined. 

the remission of sins, remission of sins is what baptism 
is for, or the thing to which it is necessary. Why, now, 
we ask, unless to conceal this, was Mr. Jeter guilty of the 
preceding mutilation of a portion of God's holy word? 
Alas for a man when he can be moved to render such 
service as this at the shrine of Orthodoxy, for no higher 
end than merely to be considered a votary there ! 

3. "He that believeth on him (the Son) is not con- 
demned, and is, consequently, pardoned or justified/ ' 

The passage from which this conclusion does not follow 
was spoken by the Savior previously to his prescribing 
the grounds on which justification, during his reign, is 
to be enjoyed, and, hence, previously to baptism. Con- 
sequently, to infer from it that we are now justified by 
faith alone without baptism is to confound times which 
are wholly distinct, and to render null an existing in- 
stitution by a passage which applied before it had an 
existence. 

But in all such passages faith is to be viewed not so 
much as a condition of remission (though it certainly 
is one) as the great principle of action which leads to 
compliance with all our other duties; and, where it is 
the faith of a sinner, as standing for — because it leads to 
compliance with them — the other conditions of re- 
mission, precisely as one of a class frequently represents 
the whole class. There is no passage in the word of 
God which represents faith as the sole condition of 
remission during Christ's reign, and hence none which 
our "scheme" of remission contradicts. 

4. But, says Mr. Jeter, the phrase, baptism for the 
remission of sins, must be construed in harmony with 



r 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 253 



the unambiguous language of the great Teacher, — He 
that believeth on him (the Son) is not condemned. 

Unquestionably the phrase must be so construed. 
How now shall this be done? The language of the 
great Teacher does not say, neither does it imply, that 
faith is the sole condition of remission; while the lan- 
guage of the Apostle Peter does say that repentance 
and baptism are for remission. Hence, since the lan- 
guage of the Apostle expressly includes repentance and 
baptism as for, or necessary to, remission, and since the 
language of the Savior does not even by implication ex- 
clude them, as not necessary, therefore, since not thus 
excluded, they must be considered as intended by the 
Savior to be understood as necessary. Certainly, what 
one passage does not exclude as not necessary to remis- 
sion another may include as necessary without involving 
a contradiction. Thus, therefore, baptism for the re- 
mission of sins can be made to harmonize strictly with 
the language of th*e great Teacher. 

But Mr. Jeter " maintains, in common with evangelical 
Christians of every name, that the sinner passes from a 
state of condemnation to a state of justification at the 
precise moment when he truly believes in Christ, or, 
which is the same thing, receives him as a Deliverer." 

At the precise moment, then, when a person believes, 
his sins are remitted. In other words, faith is the sole 
condition of remission, all others being excluded. But 
faith precedes and is distinct from both repentance and 
baptism; hence they are both excluded as conditions of 
remission. And yet the Apostle Peter says that re- 
pentance and baptism are for — i.e. necessary to — remis- 
22 



254 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

sion. Here now is an irreconcilable contradiction, and 
that too between Mr. Jeter's own "scheme" of remis- 
sion and the word of God. Will he, therefore, relieve 
his own " scheme" of the odium of contradiction before 
he again attempts to charge it upon the " scheme" of 
Mr. Campbell ? 



SECTION II. 

Objection Second. "That the Scriptures manifestly 
make a distinction between the relation which faith 
and that which baptism bears to the remission of sins, 
we read in the Scriptures; and many such passages may 
be found: — <He that believeth not shall be damned/ 
1 Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish/ 'If 
any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
anathema maranatha/ Now, we do not read, nor is it 
intimated, nor is any thing recorded from which it may 
be fairly inferred, th.it if a man is not immersed he is 
condemned, — doomed to perish and to be anathematized 
at the coming of our Lord. But if Christ has made, as 
Mr. Campbell contends, repentance, faith, and immersion 
equally necessary to forgiveness, how can it be accounted 
for that neither Christ nor his apostles ever uttered a 
malediction against the unbaptized." 

1. "The Scriptures manifestly make a distinction 
between the relation which faith and that which bap- 
tism bears to the remission of sins." 

They manifestly make this distinction, — that faith is 
the first and baptism the last of the three conditions on 
which remission depends; but they do not make this 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 255 

distinction, — that faith is essential, but baptism not, to 
remission. 

2. "But if Christ has made, as Mr. Campbell con- 
tends, repentance, faith, and immersion equally necessary 
to forgiveness, how can it be accounted for that neither 
Christ nor his apostles ever uttered a malediction 
against the unbaptized?" 

Mr. Jeter's question amounts to this: — that one thing 
which the Bible does say is to be rejected because it 
does not say another. The Bible does say that repent- 
ance and baptism are for the remission of sins, and it 
does not maledict the unbaptized: what then? Shall 
we reject the thing which it does say because it does not 
say the other? How foolish some men can make them- 
selves appear ! But, if he who " keeps the whole law and 
yet offends in one point is guilty of all," will Mr. Jeter 
inform the world whether the word of God must anathe- 
matize the unbaptized before his negligence can be con- 
sidered a crime for which he may be condemned? 



SECTION III. 

Objection Third. " There are consequences involved 
in the theory of baptismal remission which may well 
make us hesitate to adopt it." The first of which, in 
Mr. Jeter's own language, is the following: — "That the 
salvation of men, even of penitent believers, is in the 
hands of the authorized baptizers. Popish priests have 
claimed the power of remitting sins; but Protestants 
have ever considered the claim an arrogant assumption. 
I freely concede that those who maintain the sentiment 



256 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which I am opposing may not have examined its bearing 
and consequences. I speak not of them, but of +-helr 
doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two 
make four, that the remission of the believer's sins, 
according to this theory, depends, not on the will of 
God, but on the will of men. He cannot baptize him- 
self; and, if the qualified administrator does not choose, 
under no matter what plea, to baptize (or regenerate) 
him, he must either be pardoned without immersion, be 
saved without pardon, or be lost. No sophistry can 
evade this consequence." 

The Apostle Paul propounds the following questions : — 
"How shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" 
The reply to which is, they cannot believe in him of 
whom they have not heard, neither can they hear with- 
out a preacher. And yet the Savior says, "He that 
believeth not shall be damned." 

Now, there are consequences involved in this theory 
of salvation which may well make us hesitate to adopt 
it. We mention the following : — That the salvation of 
men, even of the best-intentioned, is in the hands of the 
authorized preachers. Popish priests have claimed the 
power of remitting sins; but Protestants have ever con- 
sidered the claim an arrogant assumption. We freely 
concede that the Savior and the apostles may not have 
examined the bearing and consequences of the senti- 
ment they have published to the world. We speak not 
of them, but of their doctrine. It is, however, as clear 
as that two and two make four, that the salvation of 
the sinner, according to this theory, depends, not on 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 257 

the will of God, but on the will of men. He cannot 
save himself, he cannot be saved without belief, and he 
cannot believe without a preacher. Now, if the qualified 
preacher does not choose, under no matter what plea, 
to preach to him, (save him,) he must either be saved 
without belief, believe without hearing, or be lost. No 
sophistry can evade this consequence. 

But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say the cases are not 
parallel, since, when the Savior says, he that believeth 
not shall be damned, he alludes to a person only to 
whom the gospel has been preached, who consequently 
has it in his power to believe and yet will not. Exactly 
so : and so we say that baptism is obligatory upon those 
only to whom the gospel is preached and who have the 
power to obey it. Even the laws of God bind no one, 
when deprived against his will of the power of action; 
and, to whatever extent the salvation of a sinner depends 
on the will of another, to that extent precisely, if the 
other fails to act, the sinner is free. 



SECTION rv 

Objection Fourth. "That salvation maybe entirely 
beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and 
faithful servants of Christ. Let me suppose a case. 
Fidelis, after a careful examination of the subject, 
became a convert to Christianity. Deeply conscious of 
his guilt and unworthiness, he cordially embraced Christ, 
as his prophet, priest, and king, consecrating to him, 
in the unfeigned purpose of his heart, his body, soul, 
and spirit Enraptured with the Savior's charms, he 

22* K 



258 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

rejoiced in his word and worship from day to day. Hav- 
ing settled his views on the subject of baptism, he de- 
signed at the earliest opportunity to take on him the 
badge of discipleship in baptism. But, by order of 
Tyrannus, an inveterate enemy of Christ, he was ar- 
rested and cast into prison for his ardent zeal and daunt- 
less testimony in the Kedeemer's cause. To him bap- 
tism is now impossible. And poor Fidelis cannot enjoy 
the remission of his sins." 

1. "That salvation may be entirely beyond the reach 
of the most humble, obedient, and faithful servants of 
Christ." 

When Mr. Jeter produces a most obedient and faithful 
servant of Christ — a convert to Christianity — who has 
never been baptized, then his petitio principii will be 
entitled to notice; but until then it is passed with the 
contempt which it merits. 

2. But what of the case of "poor Fidelis"? First. 
The case is purely imaginary, and is hence no ground 
of argument except with a man who prefers the vagaries 
of his fancy to the word of God. 

Second. But did "poor Fidelis" enjoy, while evincing 
his "ardent zeal" and bearing his "dauntless testimony" 
and rejoicing in the Savior's worship "from day to day," 
no opportunity to be baptized. Bather let it be said of 
him that, by neglecting his duty during this time, he 
proved himself a disobedient wretch, who, if cast into 
prison, deserved to suffer the whole consequences of his 
folly. Clearly, he was not taught by a man who prac- 
tised after the apostle's example, else the same hour of 
the night in which he heard the Truth and believed it 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 259 

he would have been baptized : what then would have 
signified his imprisonment ? 

Third. Or did he neglect his duty because taught, as 
Mr. Jeter teaches, that baptism is not essential to re- 
mission? If so, let him be condemned for preferring 
the counsels of wicked men to the counsels of God, and 
hold the presumptuous preacher responsible for the lie 
which led him astray. But, if he had not the oppor- 
tunity to be baptized, then it was not his duty. It is no 
more a man's duty to be baptized, where baptism is im- 
possible, than it is to believe where belief is impossible. 
It is not what men cannot do, but what they can do 
and have the opportunity of doing, that God requires 
at their hands. Where there is no ability there is no 
responsibility. 

SECTION V. 

Objection Fifth. That the enlightened and tender 
conscience can never be fully satisfied. Questions as to 
the validity and sin-cleansing efficacy of baptism must 
arise. I can easily know when I have passed from Vir- 
ginia into Ohio, because they are separated by water. 
I may certainly know that I have been immersed ; but 
whether I have received valid, regenerating baptism, is 
another matter. Does its efficacy depend on the quali- 
fications of the administrator ? — on his piety ? — on his 
baptism ? — on his church connection ?— on his ordina- 
tion? — on his intention? Is apostolical succession, 
either in the line of baptism or of ordination, essential 
to its validity? Is its sin-pardoning virtue connected 
with the views entertained of it by the subject ? 



260 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

1. "The enlightened and tender conscience can never 
be fully satisfied" ? 

Certainly not. The man of enlightened and tender 
conscience should " seek religion" a year or two, groan a 
few weeks over the " mourners' bench," see a few sights, 
hear a few sounds, obtain a hope, doubt a little, be 
"catechized," relate a "Christian experience," and 
then, "at the earliest opportunity," "take on him the 
badge of discipleship in baptism." A child can under- 
stand how this can satisfy the enlightened and tender 
conscience. 

2. "Questions as to the validity and sin-cleansing 
efficacy of baptism must arise," — to wit: "Does its 
efficacy depend on the qualifications of the adminis- 
trator? — on his piety? — on his baptism? — on his church 
connection?" &c. 

To an upright man, who has been made acquainted 
with what the Savior and the apostles teach upon the 
subject of baptism, these questions never occur. These 
are questions of a corrupt mind, which, having exerted 
all its powers to distort and pervert the truth, is seek- 
ing by dishonest quibbles to justify its deeds before the 
world; or of a mind bewildered and confused by the 
teachings of men who hide the truth from honest hearts 
and seek to supply its place with myths and dreams. 
No honest and intelligent man, who has been immersed 
in the fear of God and in obedience to the authority of 
Christ, ever yet doubted either the validity or value to 
him of his baptism. 



REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 261 



SECTION VI. 

Objection Sixth. H That repentance the most sin- 
cere and lasting, faith the most vigorous, love the 
most self-sacrificing, the sanctifying influence of the 
Holy Spirit, the atoning blood of Christ, his interces- 
sion before the throne, and the abounding grace of the 
Father, are all, without baptism, unavailing for salva- 
tion. I do not affirm that all who adopt the sentiment 
which I am combating push it to this extent, but I fear- 
lessly aver that this is its plain, legitimate, and inevi- 
table consequence. This gives to baptism an unscrip- 
tural prominence in the Christian system. It must 
tend, as the kindred dogma of transubstantiation has 
tended among Papists, to engender superstition. At 
first the water of baptism is deemed of equal moment 
in the scheme of salvation with the cleansing blood of 
the Eedeemer ; and by degrees the sign will come to be 
substituted for the thing signified, — the ceremonial to 
be preferred to the vital. What has occurred may occur 
again. Strange as it may appear, the error which I 
have been exposing is the root of infant baptism." 

Of this extract the first part, so false and so con- 
fused, merely revives the old ad captandum question, 
Can a man be saved without baptism ? We shall, how- 
ever, put the question to Mr. Jeter in a far more per- 
tinent form: — Are sins remitted without .one of the condu 
tions on which remission depends? If to this he replies 
that the very question in debate is whether baptism is 
one of these conditions, then we ask why he did not 



262 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

confine himself to this question, which, if we collect his 
meaning, he has not done? If baptism jointly with 
faith and repentance is for the remission of sins, as we 
unwaveringly believe it is, then we still- steadily affirm 
that no unbaptized person has in this life the assurance 
that his sins are remitted. And if our heavenly Father, 
notwithstanding the negligence of such persons, will 
still condescend to save the' a ultimately, we have only 
to say, we know not the passage in the Bible which 
teaches it. 

But it seems that our view of the design of baptism 
is the " root of infant baptism." Our view of the de- 
sign of baptism is concisely this : — that baptism when 
preceded by faith and repentance, but never without 
them, and then only as a joint condition with them, is 
for the remission of sins. How, now, can this view 
lead to the baptism of infants, who can neither believe 
nor repent, and who have no sins to be remitted? 
Did Mr. Jeter not know the assertion to be false when 
he made it ? Infant baptism had its origin in a very 
different cause. It originated in the supposed imputa- 
bility of Adam's first sin. When men in their specula- 
tions had, as they supposed, discovered that Adam's 
first sin is not only imputable, but actually is imputed, 
to all his posterity, they at once started the inquiry, 
What provision, since infants are sinners, and since 
none can be saved in their sins, has the gospel made for 
their salvation?- In this extremity, fancying that bap- 
tism alone is for the remission of sins, (which is utterly 
false,) they baptized their infants. But this, beyond all 
doubt, was a perversion of the ordinance. Hence, the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 263 

practice had its origin in a misconception of the nature 
of sin, and consisted then, as now, in an abuse of bap- 
tism. This is the true account of the origin of the 
practice. 

But, even allowing it to be true, (which is not the 
case,) that infant baptism, which is in every possible 
view of it a scandalous abuse of the ordinance, sprang 
from the same view of the design of baptism which 
we entertain, would this be any argument against that 
design ? Is the abuse of a thing in the midst of the 
nineteenth century deemed a good argument against 
it ? It may not be unworthy of ]\Ir. Jeter to think so ; 
but school-children nowadays know better. And yet, 
if there is any point in what he says on the origin of 
infant baptism, this is the amount of it. 



SECTION VII. 

Objection Seventh. "What will be the condition 
of a believer dying without baptism ? I have already 
shown conclusively that the believer is born of God,— 
that he possesses everlasting life, — and that he is a 
child of God; and yet, agreeably to the theory under 
consideration, he is unpardoned, unjustified, unsaved. 
In this condition he may, unquestionably, die. What 
would become of him ?" 

1. If Mr. Jeter has proved what he says he has 
proved, of course the man will be saved. But this he 
has not done. That he is vain enough to believe he has 
done it, we are fully prepared to admit. But with us 



264 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

his egotistic assertions have long since assumed a value 
something less than demonstrative. 

2. But why is the man supposed to be unbaptized? 
His being so must result either from uncriminal igno- 
rance, or from some restraint which renders it unavoid- 
able, or it is wilful. In the first case, his baptism is 
morally impossible, and hence not a duty ; in the second, 
it is physically impossible, and therefore none ; and in 
the third case, it is wilful, and hence a sin. A simple- 
ton can now answer Mr. Jeter's question. 

Last of all, "Mr. Campbell recoils from the conse- 
quences of his own doctrine." Mr. Campbell's doctrine 
is precisely that of the Apostle Peter; but from no con- 
sequence legitimately deducible from it has he ever yet 
recoiled. Mr. Jeter's assertion is wholly false. That 
not only Mr. Campbell, but all common sense and com- 
mon honesty, might recoil from many consequences 
feigned by Mr. Jeter to be deducible from this doctrine, 
full well we can believe. A man who can tax all his 
powers of cunning, who blushes at no trick, is ashamed 
of no quibble, to make an apostle falsify the mind of the 
Spirit which moved him to speak, is capable of deducing 
from what that apostle says any consequence, no matter 
how monstrous, if it should chance to serve a turn. 
From such consequences it would be Mr.. Campbell's 
shame not to shrink. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 265 



CHAPTBE IX. 

MB. jeter's doctrine op remission examined. 

SECTION I. 

We shall now proceed to examine Mr. Jeter's defence 
of his own doctrine of remission of sins. He develops 
his views on this subject in some ten propositions, — four 
leading, and six subordinate. Several of these may be 
disposed of with little more than a single remark. 
Whether he was ashamed to say more of his doctrine, 
or whether he knew it to be inherently so weak that the 
less is said of it the better, we shall not say; but cer- 
tainly he has treated it with a brevity not a little signifi- 
cant. True, there is not one of these propositions which, 
if we understand them, is not in itself true; and yet, in 
the sense in which it was intended they should be under- 
stood, there is not one truth in the ten. They were all 
constructed with a view to deception. Without an addi- 
tional qualification not one of them has the least ten- 
dency to establish the doctrine they were intended to 
establish; and yet with that qualification any one of 
them becomes instantly false. We expect to take the 
ambiguity out of these propositions, and to exhibit in 
them a deformity which it was hoped the reader would 
not detect. The first of them reads thus : — 

Prop. 1. "That throughout the New Testament the re- 
mission of sins, or justification , is unequivocally and uncon- 

23 



266 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

ditionally connected with faith or with exercises which imply 
its existence." 

The terms " unequivocally" and "unconditionally" are 
inserted in this proposition for no purpose but to confuse 
and deceive. As the proposition is now worded they 
add nothing to it either of force or meaning. It was 
hoped the reader would infer from them what they have 
no power to express. Deception was the thing intended 
when they were inserted and the only effect they can 
have. Omit them altogether and the sense of the propo- 
sition remains the same, thus : — Throughout the New 
Testament the remission of sins, or justification, is con- 
nected with faith or with exercises which imply its 
existence. This is exactly what the proposition asserts, 
and all it asserts, and in this sense it is true; but this 
is not what Mr. Jeter intended the reader to infer from 
it. We shall now insert the word alone after faith, when 
the proposition will convey his meaning exactly; or, 
if it does not, it will convey the only meaning which in 
the slightest degree differs from our doctrine, thus: — 
Throughout the New Testament the remission of sins is 
connected with faith alone or with exercises which imply 
its existence. Now the word " unconditionally" may 
be inserted with effect, thus:- — Throughout the New 
Testament the remission of sins is unconditionally con- 
nected with faith alone or with exercises which imply 
its existence. "With one more improvement the precise 
meaning of the proposition stands revealed and false. 
The word " connected" should give place to the word 
"depends," thus: — Throughout the New Testament tho 
remission of sins depends unconditionally on faith alone 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 267 

or on exercises which imply l ^ existence. But this is 
far too clear for Mr. Jeter. No deception could lurk in 
it. Its falsity becomes apparent at sight. In this form 
the proposition makes remission depend on faith to the 
exclusion not only of baptism but of repentance like- 
wise. But this proves a little too much for Mr. Jeter. 
His intention was to construct a proposition from which 
his readers would infer that remission depends on faith 
to the exclusion of baptism only; but this he could not 
do without at the same time making it appear that re- 
mission depends on faith to the exclusion of repentance 
likewise; hence the intentional ambiguity of his propo- 
sition. 

But we are not yet "done with the proposition. Did 
Mr. Jeter not perceive that the supplemental clause "or 
exercises which imply its existence" either rendered his 
proposition false or virtually asserted the truth of our 
doctrine? For, if its meaning is that throughout the 
New Testament the remission of sins depends uncon- 
ditionally on faith alone, then clearly it cannot depend 
on "exercises" of faith, since, by the very terms of the 
proposition, exercises are excluded. Or, if its meaning 
is that remission depends unconditionally either on faith 
but not on faith alone, or on " exercises" which imply its 
existence, then it may depend unconditionally on bap- 
tism, for baptism is an " exercise" which implies faith. 

But, the truth is, " unconditionally" does not convey 
Mr. Jeter's meaning at all. It qualifies the wrong word 
altogether. As his proposition now stands, all it affirms 
is, that remission of sins is unconditionally connected, — 
i.e. with faith or with exercises which imply it. And 



268 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

this is certainly true. Unconditionally qualifies connected. 
But connected is not the word which Mr. Jeter wishes 
to qualify. He does not mean to qualify the connection 
between faith and remission, but the condition on which 
remission depends. He does, not mean to assert that 
remission is unconditionally connected with faith, but 
that faith is the sole condition with which it is connected. 
But the instant his proposition is made to assert this, 
the supplemental clause falsifies it. 

If all Mr. Jeter meant is, that the remission of sins is 
certainly or unconditionally connected with faith, but 
not with faith alone, his proposition is true; but if this 
is not his meaning, his proposition is not only false, but 
falsifies itself. With these remarks we dismiss it. 

We shall not stop to dwell on any of the Scriptures 
adduced by Mr. Jeter in support of his proposition. 
Some of these have already been noticed, and others 
may hereafter be. As they neither assert nor neces- 
sarily imply — not even one of them — that faith is the 
sole condition of remission, nor any thing akin to it, they 
may with propriety be passed with this brief allusion 
to them. 

SECTION II. 

Prop. 2. "That in many places in the New Testament 
spiritual blessings, which imply the remission of sins, are 
positively promised to faith" 

Is it not strange that any man should entertain, as 
Mr. Jeter does, a doctrine which he clearly fears to state 
in a simple perspicuous proposition ? He parleys around 
the word alone, would have it understood, shrinks from 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 2t39 

using it, and yet knows that no other term half so well 
and briefly conveys his meaning. That he believes with 
his whole heart that faith is the sole condition of remis- 
sion is certain; and yet he fears to assert it. How easy 
to have expressed his doctrine thus: — the remission of 
sins depends on faith alone. All men and even children 
could have understood him then. But his cunning taught 
him«that no such proposition as this could hang together 
an instant in the hands of Mr. Campbell. Besides, this 
would have been too clear for even the common people. 
Even they could have pronounced it false. Hence some- 
thing far more involved and intricate is preferred; and 
yet, by this very mode of stating his doctrine, Mr. Jeter 
furnishes no mean evidence of its falsity. 

However, we shall grant his proposition to be true, 
with the single qualification that in the New Testament 
there is not even one blessing promised to faith alone. 
Faith alone is never in the New Testament treated of as 
the condition of any thing. Wherever spoken of by 
itself it is always to be conceived either as a principle 
of action leading immediately to obedience to Christ, or 
as a condition jointly with other conditions of whatever 
blessing depends on it. . 

But in confirmation of his second, as a leading pro- 
position, Mr. Jeter subjoins and discusses three minor 
propositions, of which it is proper we should now take 
notice, — the first of which is thus expressed : — 

1. " That salvation is promised to faith." True, but 
not to faith alone. Salvation is promised to faith, pre- 
cisely as baptism is said to save us, — i.e. not as the sole 

23* 



270 REVIEW 01' CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

condition of salvation, but as a joint condition with 
others, the others being understood. 

2. "Adoption into the family of God is the privilege of 
believers." It is the privilege of believers, just as the re- 
mission of sins is the privilege of a penitent. As re- 
pentance is not the sole condition of remission, so neither 
is faith the sole condition of adoption. Should a man 
believe simply, but do nothing else, he would never be 
received into the family of God. Neither does Mr. Jeter 
believe it, though he intended the reader to infer it from 
his proposition. His proposition is true in the proper 
view of it, but he wished a false inference to be drawn 
from it. 

3. "Eternal life is distinctly promised to faith." Does 
Mr. Jeter mean that eternal life is promised to faith as 
the sole condition on which it is bestowed? If so, we shall 
not attempt to discuss with him a proposition which he 
knew to be false when he penned it. But in what lies 
his argument ? Certainly in this, if in any thing : — that 
eternal life is distinctly promised to faith alone, and, 
since eternal life includes the remission of sins, there- 
fore the remission of sins depends on faith alone. But 
we deny, first, that eternal life is promised to faith 
alone; and, second, that eternal life and the remission 
of sins depend on the same conditions, except in part or 
accidentally. When Mr. Jeter makes good these positions 
he carries his point, but not before. 

It is worthy of note that Mr. Jeter seems to be dis- 
cussing all the time a proposition which is not in dis- 
pute. He seems to be discussing the proposition that 
the sinner is saved by faith. But this we have never 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. U71 

denied. What we deny is that the sinner is saved by 
faith alone, — a very different proposition. Hence, all 
the Scriptures cited by him are irrelevant, since they 
establish only the former proposition, but have no 
tendency to establish the latter. 



SECTION III. 

Prop. 3. "That privileges which are inseparable from the 
remission of sins are frequently promised, in the New Testa- 
ment, to exercises or graces that imply the existence of 
faith." 

This is a mere repetition of the second proposition 
with a slight change of verbiage. That relates to bless- 
ings, this to privileges; and yet, under that, Mr. Jeter 
says, adoption into the family of God is the privilege of 
believers, and under this, the first passage he quotes re- 
lates to blessings! But this, like that, rests on three 
minor propositions, namely : — 

1. " The kingdom of heaven is promised to humility" 
The line of argument which this and the leading pro- 
position together indicate is this: — the kingdom of 
heaven is a privilege; this privilege implies the remission 
of sins. Humility is an exercise or a grace; this exercise 
or grace implies faith. Now, that privilege is promised 
to this exercise or grace; therefore the remission of sins 
depends on faith alone, without or to the exclusion of 
baptism. — q.e.d. 

To enjoy the kingdom of heaven is certainly a privi- 
lege, but a privilege enjoyed by those alone who are in 
it. KTow, however commendable and necessary a thing 



272 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

humility may be, (and we are far from wishing to 
underrate it) men do not enter into the kingdom of 
heaven by it. They enter into the kingdom of heaven 
by being born of water and of the Spirit: at least, so taught 
the Savior ; but, when in the kingdom, without humility 
they will not be allowed to enjoy it. This presents us 
with the correct view. 

2. "Salvation is promised to prayer" Salvation, in the 
case of a Christian;, certainly depends on prayer, but not 
on prayer alone. It depends on prayer jointly with the 
discharge of other duties. But nowhere does the New 
Testament teach that during the reign of Christ the re- 
mission of the sinner's sins — that is, a person who has 
never been a Christian — depends on prayer. If, there- 
fore, Mr. Jeter's proposition includes Christians only, it 
is true; but, if it includes aliens with Christians, it is 
false. 

3. "Adoption is declared to be the privilege of such persons 
as follow the guidance of the Spirit" This proposition 
presents us with no new matter. Indeed, it is the mere 
repetition for the sixth time of the sole argument with 
which, so far, Mr. Jeter has attempted to sustain his 
cause. But his proof of the proposition should be re- 
peated, — namely, " For as many as are led by the Spirit 
of God (and if those who repent and believe the gospel 
are not led by the Spirit of God, by what Spirit are 
they led?) they are the sons of God." This is too bad. 
Such puerility w^e cannot stoop to notice. But, as an 
offset to the nonsense, we subjoin the following: — "For 
as many as are led by the Spirit of God (and, if those 
who believe, repent, and are baptized are not led by the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 273 

Spint of God, by what Spirit are they led ?) they are the 
sons of God." 

SECTION IV. 

Prop. 4. "That the remission of sins was, in various 
cases, possessed and enjoyed by faith without or before 
baptism" 

Whether this proposition is to be considered true or 
false depends altogether on the period of time to which 
it is applied and the qualifications with which it is at- 
tended. It is certainly true that, at a period of time 
when no such thing as baptism existed, remission of sins 
was enjoyed in innumerable instances without baptism; 
but even then it is not so certain that remission de- 
pended on faith alone, unless as an exception to the 
rule. For four thousand years of the world's history — 
namely, from the creation of man to the commencement 
of John's ministry — remission of sins was enjoyed with- 
out baptism, for the simple reason that there was no 
such thing as baptism; but it is far from being certain 
that even during that time remission was enjoyed by 
faith alone. Indeed, it is very certain that in most 
cases it was not. But Mr. Jeter attempts to sustain his 
proposition by three actual instances of its truth, two 
of which- we shall now examine. 

The first of these instances is that of the thief on the 
cross. The argument based on this case against us (an 
argument which has been refuted a thousand times) is 
briefly this: — The thief on the cross was saved, and 
saved without baptism ; therefore baptism is not neces- 



274 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

sary to salvation. We admit the premises, but deny the 
conclusion. 

During the continuance of John's ministry no Jew 
could be saved without baptism ; for those who rejected 
it rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and 
hence could not be saved. Moreover, his baptism was, 
for the time-being, for, that is, the means of obtaining, the 
remission of sins, but, even then, in the case of a Jew 
only, and not in that of a Gentile. But, when John died, 
baptism again ceased to be necessary to salvation even 
in the case of a Jew. John had no successor in office, — 
left no one to continue his ministry. His baptism ceased 
with his life. Hence, from the day of his death until 
the day of Pentecost there was not a man on earth 
authorized to administer baptism. Indeed, during this 
period there existed by authority no baptism. Hence, 
the Savior neither authorized the seventy nor the twelve 
whom he sent out during this time, to baptize. And, 
although it is pretty certain that after John's death 
some of his disciples continued to practise his baptism, 
still, they did it without authority. Now, it was during 
this time that the salvation of the thief occurred. It 
occurred at a time when baptism h^d by authority posi- 
tively no existence whatever. Hence it was obligatory 
on no one. 

We are now prepared to correct the argument based 
on the case of the thief, thus : — The thief on the cross 
was saved, — saved without baptism ; therefore baptism 
was not necessary to salvation. This argument is cor- 
rect. But how illogical to infer that, because baptism 
was not necessary to salvation at a time when it had no 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 275 

authorized existence, it is not now necessary! And yet 
this is exactly what Mr. Jeter does. 

But, in speaking of this and a like case, he says, 
" Possibly it maybe objected (though the objection is, 
in my view, of no validity) that these cases occurred be- 
fore the giving of the apostolic commission." What the 
objection may be in the view of Mr. Jeter we cannot say, 
but we venture to assert that, in the view of all candid 
men who can understand the nature of the connection 
between a premise and its conclusion, the objection is 
perfectly overwhelming. To argue that baptism is not 
now necessary to salvation, because the thief was saved 
without it at a time when it was no man's duty to be 
baptized, is knowingly to argue falsely. It is as gross 
an outrage of reason and truth as to argue that faith in 
Christ is not now necessary to salvation, because the 
time was, before Christ came, when it was not neces- 
sary. It is a poor reply to the objection in question 
to say it is "of no validity." But, wanting as it is in 
validity, Mr. Jeter would part from the nails on his 
fingers, could he successfully repel it; and well might 
he do so, for to repel it would be the triumph of his 
cause. 

But he cites also the case of Cornelius, and thinks it a 
" fair inference" that his sins were remitted before bap- 
tism. This inference appears to rest on the supposition 
that the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit in the case 
necessarily implied the remission of his sins. But this, 
in the absence of all evidence, we cannot admit, and, 
hence, think the inference any thing else than fair. 
When once the design of an ordinance has been esta- 



276 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

Wished by divine authority, of what avail is human 
inference against it ? Whatever baptism was for to the 
three thousand at Pentecost, it was for in the case of 
Cornelius. To him it had all the meaning it has to any 
one else, and no more. The ordinance has not two 
designs, but one. We hence conclude that, when Peter 
commanded Cornelius to be baptized, it was for the remis- 
sion of sins. 

True, the Spirit was poured out on him before his 
baptism, but why? Not as an evidence that his sins 
were remitted, but as an evidence that the Gentiles as well 
as the Jews were to be admitted to the privileges of the gospel. 
This much we can affirm in the light of revelation, but 
beyond this all is myth. To infer that Cornelius was 
pardoned before his baptism on no other ground than 
that of the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit — un- 
less we knew that such outpouring necessarily implied 
the remission of his sins, (a thing which we can never 
know,) — is not to reason, but to speculate. It is here 
that Mr. Jeter's argument reveals its weakness. He 
assumes that an extraordinary fact sustaining to remis- 
sion — he can never say what relation — is to be taken 
as evidence thereof, and then on this fact bases his in- 
ference as to when Cornelius was pardoned. But his 
argument is clearly defective. When it is once esta- 
blished that baptism is, even in one case, for the remis- 
sion of sins, the presumption is that this is what it is 
for in every case; and so strong is this presumption, 
that nothing save an actual assertion of the Bible to the 
contrary, or some fact wholly irreconcilable therewith, 
can set it aside. For this reason, we must still insist 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 277 

that baptism even in the case of Cornelius was for the 
remission of sins. 

SECTION V. 

Having now examined such arguments as Mr. Jeter 
has to offer in defence of his view of remission, we shall 
next present; in his own language, his strange theory 
of baptism. 

"If/' he remarks, (p. 258,) "baptism, as I have en- 
deavored to show, is not a condition or means of obtain- 
ing the remission of sin, then it follows that it is a 
symbolic declaration of the remission of sins already ob- 
tained through faith in Christ. In support of this con- 
clusion, I remark, — 

"First. That it is in perfect harmony with the teach- 
ing of the Scriptures. This point has been sufficiently 
elucidated, and the reader must judge of it for himself. 

" Secondly. That it is according to analogy.* There 
are two New Testament institutions, — baptism and the 
Lord's Supper. The latter is unquestionably a symbolic 
ordinance. Bread and wine are used to symbolize the 
broken body and sin-atoning blood of Jesus. May we 
not reasonably infer that both ordinances are of the 
same general nature, — that as one is symbolic so is the 
other? If we do not literally, but only in a figure, 
eat the Lord's body and drink his blood in the supper, 
does it not seem probable that our sins are not literally, 
but only in a figure, washed away in baptism ?" 

Such is Mr. Jeter's theory of baptism; and greater 



* "Analogies prove nothing." — J. B. Jeter. 
24 



278 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

confusion of thought than it indicates, it would be diffi- 
cult to imagine. No one not as blind as its author can 
be mistaken as to the motive which produced it. It is 
a monstrous effort to evade the plainest teachings of 
Holy Writ. Pliant, truly, and morbid must be that 
credulity which staggers not at this and yet rejects 
baptism for the remission of sins. But we must par- 
ticularize. 

1. "May we not reasonably infer that both ordi- 
nances [baptism and the Lord's Supper] are of the 
same general nature, — that as one is symbolic so is 
the other?" 

Is this humble petition all the evidence Mr. Jeter has 
to present that the two institutions are of the same 
symbolic nature ? Alas for a cause when it has to beg 
its way to the confidence of mankind ! But let us, in 
reply to the feeble prayer, grant, for the sake of argu- 
ment, that both institutions are of the same general 
nature : what then ? What has this to do with the 
design of either? Literally nothing. But the Lord's 
Supper is symbolic : granted ; and baptism is symbolic : 
granted. In the Lord's Supper we literally eat the 
loaf and drink the wine, and these respectively represent 
the body and blood of Christ. And in baptism we are 
literally immersed; but what does this represent? Ee- 
mission of sins, says Mr. Jeter. But where is the proof? 
We know that the loaf represents the Savior's body, 
and the wine his blood, for he has told us so. But 
where has he told us that baptism represents the remis- 
sion of sins ? We repeat, where ? 

2. " If we do not literally, but only in a figure, eat the 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 279 

Lord's body and drink his blood in the supper, does it 
not seem probable that our sins are not literally, but 
only in a figure, washed away in baptism V 9 

To talk of eating the Lord's body and drinking his 
blood in a figure, of washing away sins in a figure, is 
supremely ridiculous. The truth is, we neither eat the 
Lord's body nor drink his blood in any sense. We lite- 
rally eat the loaf and drink the wine, and these represent, 
or stand for, his body and blood. In like manner, in bap- 
tism we are literally immersed, but there is nothing for 
which our immersion stands, as the loaf stands for the 
body of Christ. It is just here that Mr. Jeter's far- 
fetched theory betrays its truthlessness. Indeed, the 
whole thing is a mere figment, unnaturally forced out 
of his brain to avoid admitting what is as clearly taught 
in the word of God as the divinity of the Savior: — that 
baptism, jointly with belief and repentance, is for the 
remissk n of sins. 



280 REVIEW OE CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 



CHAPTEE X. 

THREE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. 
SECTION I. 

Our Arianism. 

Upon this subject of course Mr. Jeter is all himself, 
and so extremely orthodox that he is wellnigh a heretic. 
That some traits of his character singularly fit him for 
writing on it, we at least shall not deny. It is peculiar 
to small minds that they would always appear to be 
great by seeming perfectly to comprehend those sub- 
jects which even the greatest minds are unable to grasp. 
Nor is it a less frequent case that those whose sound- 
ness in the faith there is the best reason to suspect are 
most clamorous about the heresies of others. But the 
following is the manner in which Mr. Jeter discourses 
of our heresy on this subject : — 

" Unitarianism, in all its phases, from high Arianism 
to low Socinianism, is, in the judgment of the Christian 
world, a far more serious error than Universalism. It 
divests the gospel of its distinctive glory, and converts 
it into a lifeless, cold, and inefficient code of ethics. The 
atonement of Christ, deriving its efficacy from the essen- 
tial and infinite dignity of his person, is the only founda- 
tion of a sinner's hope and consolation. The reformers 
received Unitarians into their fellowship, and sanctioned 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 281 

their ministrations with a full knowledge of their errors. 
In the early part of the present century, a party of JSTew 
Lights, headed by the Eev. Barton W. Stone, in the State 
of Kentucky, became Arians. In a letter to the Chris- 
tian Baptist, published in the year 1827, he used this 
language: — 'If these observations be true, will it not 
follow, undeniably, that the word (di' hou) by whom all 
things were made, was not the only true God, but a 
person that existed with the only true God before crea- 
tion began, — not from eternity, (else he must be the 
only true God,) but long before the reign of Augustus 
Caesar?' 

"Of the extent to which the Arian notions of Mr. 
Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the re- 
formers, I have no means of ascertaining In the year 
1844, I made a tour in the West, of which notes were 
published, on my return, in the Beligious Herald. From 
the notes I extract substantially the following para- 
graph, the statements in which, so far as I have seen, 
have never been called in question, and which, I pre- 
sume, cannot be successfully contradicted. 

"In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its vicinity, 
the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are some- 
what numerous. They were formerly professedly Arians, 
but some years since they united with the followers of 
Mr. Alexander Campbell. I took much pains to learr, 
whether their views of the divinity of Christ had under- 
gone a satisfactory change. All with whom I conversed 
on the subject concurred in testifying that they reject 
the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and of his substitu- 
tional and piacular sufferings. One of the professor? of 

24* 



282 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

the University of Missouri (situated at this place) in- 
formed me that in a conversation which he held with 
Mr. A., a distinguished preacher of the denomination in 
this State, he most distinctly repudiated these vital 
principles of the evangelic system. One thing is cer- 
tain: — the Disciples are not ignorant of the fact that 
they are generally believed to be Arians; and under 
this imputation they patiently lie. Unless there is a 
strange and prevalent misconception in the community, 
these Disciples stand in most urgent need of a thorough 
doctrinal reformation." 

Several things in these extracts we believe it neces- 
sary to notice. 

I. " The reformers received Unitarians into their fel- 
lowship, and r anctioned their ministrations with a full 
knowledge of their errors." 

It is true that Mr. Stone and his brethren did, in the 
State of Kentucky, in the early part of the present effort 
at reformation, unite with Mr. Campbell and his breth- 
ren, neither party claiming superiority over the other in 
union : but it is not true that Mr. Stone and his brethren 
were united with as Arians ; nor is it true that we, as a 
people, have ever sanctioned the ministrations of any man 
or set of men as Arians, or the preaching of Arian senti- 
ments. The charge is an arrant slander. In the union 
between Mr. Stone and Mr. Campbell, the Bible, the whole 
Bible, and nothing but the Bible, in the full and proper sense 
of its terms, upon all matters both of faith and practice, was 
the sole basis of the union. Upon no other basis, nor in 
any other sense, did Mr. Campbell ever consent to the 
union ; and it is due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 283 

that on no other basis nor in any other sense did he 
ever demand the union. 

But we owe it to ourselves as a people to say, that, on 
more subsequent occasions than one, Mr. Stone did hold 
language which we do not indorse, and gave utterance 
to sentiments (as, for example, that in the extract cited 
by Mr. Jeter) which we distinctly disavow and repudi- 
ate. But in saying this we are merely to be understood 
as giving utterance to our own real convictions in the 
case, and not as intending a compliment to the cap- 
tious spirit of sectarianism, nor yet an unkind reflection 
on the memory of Mr. Stone. We have long since, we 
trust, learned to distinguish between the error, though 
even a grave one, of a good man's head when specu- 
lating, and those traits of his heart which mark him as 
a man of lofty faith and genuine piety. While trying to 
comprehend those incomprehensible and mysterious re- 
lations which subsist between the Father and the Son, 
to which his finite powers did not fit him, (and of whom 
can less be said?) Mr. Stone did at times, as we conceive, 
fall below the merits of the subject; but he never forgot 
to honor that Son with a veneration and service which 
should put to the blush the thousand bigots who are 
still willing to cavil at his error. He never breathed a 
prayer to the Father of mercies nor uttered the name 
of the Savior that he poured not forth a depth and 
warmth of devotion which finds no place in the lip- 
service of those who can still enact their revels over his 
grave, and who, while they affect to honor the Savior 
by words and names, are yet far from him in their 
hearts and in their practice. 



284 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

It is further due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, that 
he did not himself consider his views to be Arian; that 
he held the Son to be divine as the Father, but not, like 
the Father, eternal; and that only in his polemic dis- 
cussions, or in an occasional fugitive piece, did he ever 
trouble the public with his sentiments on the subject. 
In all his other public and private teachings he preached 
Christ Jesus and him crucified as an all-sufficient Savior 
of sinners, free from all objectionable peculiarities. 

Nor is it less due to Mr. Campbell to state, that no 
sooner had Mr. Stone published his first illicit line or 
given utterance to his first vagrant thought on this sub- 
ject, than he promptly opposed him; and that he con- 
tinued to do so with a voice kind, but decided and ever 
dissentient, until the latter was summoned to that bai 
where all human disputes must receive their ultimate 
adjustment. While Mr. Campbell is not ashamed to 
avow his respect for the memory of Mr. Stone, nor his 
affection for him as a man while living, he is not now 
willing to be thought the apologist for his error, nor 
yet to be held responsible for it. He profoundly disap- 
proves the Arian doctrine on the present subject, no 
matter in whom found. 

II. " One thing is certain : — the disciples are not igno- 
rant of the fact that they are generally believed to be 
Arians; and under this imputation they patiently lie." 

We can inform Mr. Jeter that there is more than one 
thing certain in the premises. It is certain that we are 
not ignorant of the fact that we are charged with being 
Arians, certain that the truth was never uttered when 
the charge was made, and certain that it is wholly 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. 285 

false that we have lain patiently under the imputation 
And there is another thing of which we think we are 
not quite ignorant. We are not quite ignorant of what 
kind of spirit and equity it is that can circulate a 
slanderous charge against a whole body of Christians 
without the shadow of evidence on which to base it, and 
then summon them to the bar of public opinion to 
prove their innocence, before their guilt can even be pre- 
sumed, and, because they do not choose to obey the 
summons, no matter when nor by what petty bigot 
served, set them down as guilty. We think we know 
something of this spirit, and also of those in whom it 
resides. But we will once more, for the thousandth 
time, condescend to contradict the slander, and shall 
leave Mr. Jeter to acquit himself for its appearance 
where we saw it last. 

Upon the divinity of the Savior, his rank and rela- 
tions, though we deem them of infinite moment and 
transcendently sublime, we yet think it neither desirable 
nor necessary to speculate. We shall therefore be con- 
tent for the present with the following concise and plain 
statements : — 

1. That Christ, in the state in which he existed as 
the Word, was as uncreated as the God with whom he 
existed. 

2. That in his uncreated nature he is as perfectly 
divine, in the most essential sense of the term, as the 
Father who sent him. 

3. But that he had no existence as the Son of God 
until born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea. 

4. That in his death he has made an expiation for the 



286 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

sins of the world so complete that all may be saved who 
will, and so full of merit that God can be perfectly just 
in justifying the sinner who believes in Jesus. 

5. That, in virtue of his glorious personal rank and 
dignity as God manifest in the flesh, and the efficacy 
of his death in the redemption of sinners, all men 
should honor him even as the Father himself deserves 
to be honored. 

III. "Of the extent to which the Arian notions of 
Mr. Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the 
reformers, I have no means of ascertaining." 

We shall be at pains, then, to enlighten Mr. Jeter, if he 
will consent not to slander us for the future, respecting 
a point upon which, though he is not ashamed to write, 
he has still to confess his ignorance, by informing him 
that there is not one known Arian, or Arian sentiment, 
in all our ranks, from Maine to the shores of the Pacific. 

IV. "In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its 
vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are 
somewhat numerous. They were formerly professedly 
Arians, but some years since they united with the 
followers of Mr. Alexander Campbell, I took much 
pains to learn whether their views of the divinity of 
Christ had undergone a satisfactory change. All with 
whom I conversed on the subject concurred in testify- 
ing that they reject the doctrine of Christ's divinity 
and of his substitutional and piacular sufferings." 

Now, how extremely to be regretted i.t is that these 
brethren did not know that there was a reverend in- 
quisitor among them, who, in the genuine secret spirit 
of a Jesuit, was inquiring into their faith with a view 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 287 

of pronouncing them all heretics, that they might, low- 
bowed to the earth, have presented him evidence that 
their " views had undergone a satisfactory change' ' ! 
But we are curious to know who and how many consti- 
tuted the "all" of whom Mr. Jeter was at so "much 
pains" to seek the information which was the object 
of his most Christian solicitude. Did he go to these 
brethren themselves to learn what their views were, or 
what they had been, or whether in reality their views 
had ever needed a change? Or did he go to their 
bigoted religious enemies? Of course a person of Mr. 
Jeter's divine affection for the Truth would go to the 
only party from whom in such cases the Truth can be 
learned. 

But the church at Columbia was never Arian, pro- 
fessedly or otherwise, never denied the divinity of Christ, 
and never rejected his death as an expiation for the sins 
of the world. The charge cannot be sustained except 
by the testimony of lying lips. 

Y. " One of the professors of the University of Mis- 
souri (situated at this place) informed me that in a con- 
versation which he held with Mr. A., a distinguished 
preacher of the denomination in this State, he most dis- 
tinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic 
system." 

If the professor here alluded to was at the time a mem- 
ber of the Baptist church, and subsequently president 
of William Jewell College in this State, we have only to 
say that we do not go about to contradict the fables 
of an old wife whose feeble mind and small bitter enmity 
eminently fit him to be the author of the truthless tale 



288 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

here attributed to him, and which has owed to him its 
currency wherever his slow nature has enabled him to 
circulate it. 

But if the professor was any person else, and if the 
Mr. A. alluded to was Mr. T. M. Allen, of this State, 
who then was, and still is, living near the University, 
we have then to state, — 

1. That Mr. Allen never did, either in conversation 
with the professor aforesaid or with any one else, deny 
the divinity of Christ; but that, on the contrary, he 
then was, and now is, a profound believer in that doc- 
trine. 

2. That Mr. Allen never did, either expressly or by 
implication, deny that Christ died to expiate the sins 
of the world; but that, on the other hand, he cordially 
believes in and distinctly affirms the doctrine, in the 
most unequivocal sense of the terms. 

While Mr. Jeter saw fit to confine himself to general 
issues, we thought it proper to join issue with him gene- 
rally; but, since he has thought it necessary to descend 
to special cases and particular persons and to implicate 
honorable men in what he says, we also deem it ne- 
cessary to descend to particular rejoinders. And we 
imagine he will find it something easier to quibble over 
general issues than to acquit himself before the public 
for making specific charges against good men and inno- 
cent churches which he cannot sustain. 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 289 



SECTION II. 

Our "growing desire to be accounted orthodox." 
Upon this subject Mr. Jeter delivers himself thus: — 
"He has been a careless observer of Campbellism who 
has not perceived its effort to get rid of the odium 
theologicum by conforming its teachings more and more 
to the popular views." And again : — "There is manifestly 
a growing desire among the reformers to be accounted evan- 
gelical, orthodox, and regular. A striking proof of this 
remark was furnished, not long since, in the city of 
St. Louis, Missouri. There was a Christian association 
formed in that city. The members of the association 
were required to be members of some 'evangelical 
church/ Applicants for admission from the Christian 
or Eeformed church were rejected, on the ground that 
they furnished no evidence of being 'evangelical.' To 
obviate the difficulty, a prominent member of the church, 
with, it is stated, the concurrence of the pastor and 
other leading members, drew up and presented a state- 
ment of the doctrines held by the church. Here follows 
the creed." 

To be able to appreciate the cool impudence with 
which the author of these excerpts can falsify our posi- 
tion in a given case, any one must carefully read his 
book. There is no assertion which he is not ready to 
make, provided only it can have the effect, in his judg- 
ment, to depreciate us in the eyes of the public and to 
make it appear that we are inconsistent and contra- 
dictory. He is not ignorant of the just indifference with 
25 . T 



290 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

which Mr. Campbell has hitherto borne himself towards 
every doctrine which had no higher claims on his confi- 
dence than its being merely orthodox; and yet he now 
has the hardihood to accuse Mr. Campbell of a desire to 
be the thing he hates. Had Mr. Campbell ever written 
a line against polytheism, Mr. Jeter could with as much 
truth have called him a polytheist as he now accuses him 
of a desire to be accounted orthodox, and for precisely 
the same reason. If there is any one thing on account 
of which Mr. Campbell has reason to feel a just and an 
honorable pride, and for which he deserves to be crowned 
with the plaudits of his brethren and the gratitude of 
the present and future ages, it is the noble independence 
of mind and firmness with which he has dissented from 
that dogmatic and tyrannical thing called orthodoxy, 
and the confidence and success with which he has taken 
his appeal to the God of truth, the Bible, and to a free 
and enlightened people. And to accuse him now of a 
desire to kiss again the fetters which bound him once 
is to falsify every feeling of his heart and the best acts 
of his life 

But not only is Mr. Campbell " desirous," it seems, 
" of being accounted orthodox," but in one of his recent 
debates "nothing so much annoyed him as the quotation of 
heterodox sentiments from his early writings" Perhaps so. 
True, Mr. Campbell has not, at times, hesitated to state 
that his views (where such was the case) were in unison 
with those held by the self-styled orthodox parties. 
But why? Was it because he desired to be "accounted 
orthodox" ? or because he conceived that these parties 
added aught of weight to his views? or that his views 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 291 

were either the better or the nearer right because held 
by these parties ? He knows not Mr. Campbell who so 
reasons. No. There are certain very weak-minded men 
who are ready to be Mussulman, Jew, or Christian, just 
as it happens to be the vogue to dub Mussulman, Jew, 
or Christian orthodox : for their sake Mr. Campbell has 
at times consented to sound the magic note that on 
certain points he is orthodox. 

But who is it (we have a desire to know) who has 
constituted Mr. Jeter, and the "Christian sects" with 
whom he agrees on one thing and dissents on three, 
the only orthodox people in the world? Or when and 
where, since Christ ascended, has it been determined 
what orthodoxy is? In what Council of Mce, Constanti- 
nople, or Trent, have these questions been decided? 
But in what does orthodoxy consist ? Doxa means an 
opinion; and ortho means correct. Hence orthodoxy 
must mean a correct opinion. But whose business is 
it to determine whose opinions are correct ? Has Mr. 
Jeter the right to pronounce on the opinions of the 
Catholic? If so, who invested him with it? Has not 
the Catholic an equal right to pronounce on the opinions 
of Mr. Jeter ? Or are the opinions of Mr. Jeter correct 
merely because he himself pronounces them so ? Must 
we not by the same rule admit the opinions of the 
Catholic to be correct likewise ? Shall the voice of the 
majority settle the question? Then, alas for " Christian 
sects" ! But Mr. Jeter will doubtless say orthodoxy 
consists in correct views of the fundamental principles 
of Christianity. Granted. But whose business is it to 
determine whose views of these principles are correct 



292 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

and whose not? Who has constituted the Baptist 
church judge to determine the correctness of our views? 
or who has been constituted judge to determine the cor- 
rectness of the views of the Baptist church ? The truth 
is, this whole question of orthodoxy among "Christian 
sects" resolves itself into the following ridiculous posi- 
tion: — that the Baptists agree to call the Methodists 
orthodox, and the Methodists consent to return the 
compliment ; they two agree to call the Presbyterians 
orthodox, and the Presbyterians consent to return the 
compliment ; and what they three agree to call ortho- 
dox,, that is orthodox. In other words, I will agree to 
glorify you if you will consent to glorify me ; and we 
two will agree to glorify some one else if some one else 
will consent to glorify us ; and what we three agree to 
glorify that let all men glorify, for that is glorious ! It 
can hardly be wondered at that Mr. Campbell should 
have felt more of contempt than veneration for a coali- 
tion for such self-exalting and anti-Christian ends. 

But of the fact that " there is manifestly a growing 
desire among the reformers to be accounted evangelical, 
orthodox, and regular, a striking proof was furnished, 
not long since, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri." 

The transaction here alluded to was purely a local 
matter, the work of a few individuals on their own re- 
sponsibility, and, as such, passed at the time with little 
notice, and without exciting the slightest interest in our 
ranks. We confess we never suspected it as being wrong 
until we saw it smutted with the approbation of Mr. 
Jeter. Certainly these brethren are far too honorable 
and high-mii\ded not to feel mortified at the circum- 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 298 

stance. Neither would they have pressed their claim to 
be admitted into the association referred to in the man- 
ner in which they did, had they not witnessed efforts to 
exclude them from it in order to expose to public con- 
tempt the cause which lay near their hearts, headed by 
a man whose passionless nature, Jesuitism, and sour 
heart, strangely fit him to act the chief part in all trans- 
actions where trickery and perfidy are to be enacted. 
We honor these brethren, but, most of all, the lamented 
one now dead, for not suffering themselves to be dis- 
graced when the object was that their disgrace should 
terminate on their holy religion. But he knows them 
not who cites this act to prove that either they, or we 
as a people, have a growing desire to be accounted 
orthodox; and, as for the whim that their doctrinal 
summary is a creed, it excites not even our smile. 



SECTION III. 

The effect Mr. Jeter's book has had. 
Whatever may be the intentions of an author, or the 
merits of his book in other respects, if its effects have 
been bad the book itself cannot be good. Tried by 
this rule, and too severe a judgment cannot be pro- 
nounced on Mr. Jeter's book. Its effects have been 
b ac ^ — bad to the full extent of its influence, bad with- 
out one compensating trait. If such was the result 
intended by its author, we shall certainly admit that 
he has, with a skill nothing less than matchless, adapted 
his work to its end ; but, if such was not the result, in- 
tended, then surely he is the most unfortunate of blun- 
25* 



294 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

derers. When we say we are mortified at the appear- 
ance of this book at this particular crisis and grieved 
at the effect it has had, we but feebly express our feel- 
ings. 

In repelling the attacks of the Baptists in time past, 
our brethren may not always have been either as wise 
as serpents or as harmless as doves. But, if for this 
there is not a justification to be pleaded, there is at 
least this apology, — that they were feeble and felt it; 
and the attacks made on them came from a party which 
was strong, and were made in a manner so unjust and 
so unkind as almost of necessity to provoke the spirit 
in which they were met. But what most of all made 
these attacks painful to us, was the fact that, in making 
them, the Baptists sought and accepted abetment from 
their old hereditary foes, — the infant-sprinkling sects, — 
from whom, in time gone, they had suffered the grossest 
injuries, and from whom they were still receiving daily 
insults and contemptuous jeers. We thought it mean 
in the Baptists to join these half Eoman Catholic sects 
— who had filled the church (so called) with flesh and 
blood, and, indeed, had wellnigh completed its corrup- 
tion — in a crusade against a body of people who were 
conscientiously contending for the supremacy of the 
Holy Scriptures and the purity of the ordinances of 
Jesus Christ as defined by him and delivered to the 
world. But it happened that these sects and the Bap- 
tists agreed in three things : — 1st, in the use of a cabal- 
istic Trinity, — something of which the Bible knows 
nothing; 2d, in a supernatural agency in conversion, — 



REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 295 

another thing about which the Bible is silent ; and 3d, 
in relating an experience (except in the case of infants) 
before baptism or sprinkling, — a third thing of which 
the Bible says nothing. And, agreeing in these three 
things, they agreed also in a fourth ; to wit, in perse- 
cuting us, — a matter about which the Bible is not silent ; 
for it is still, as it was in time past, peculiar to those 
who are born after the flesh to persecute those who are 
born after the Spirit. 

But as our brethren grew stronger they became more 
patient of injuries ; and as they grew more able to re- 
pel attacks the Baptists grew less inclined to repeat 
them. Consequently, the parties had, to a very great 
extent at least, both ceased to attack and to be at- 
tacked. Both were tranquil; and, clearly, a more 
friendly spirit was beginning to prevail among them. 

At this juncture the noble purpose to give to the 
world a corrected version of the Holy Scriptures began 
to find emphatic utterance at many a lip and to meet 
with a grand response in many a heart. The Baptists 
and our brethren, in the providence of God, were called 
together to consider of and do the work. The most 
amiable feelings swayed them both. They had met, 
not now for war, but for counsel, and, if not in the 
spirit of brethren, at least in that of friends. The 
work of conciliation went finely on. We were not 
willing to affirm that we were so good that we might 
not grow better, nor the Baptists that they were so 
wise that they might not grow wiser, by the inter- 
course. Indeed, many went so far (we confess we were 



296 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 

not of the number) as to contemplate a prospect, distant 
though and dim they deemed it, when an understanding 
might be come to on the points of difference between 
the parties, and when the gospel should be pleaded by 
the united strength and wisdom of both. The view was 
enchanting 

But at this crisis Mr. Jeter's book appears, — one of 
the meanest of all the attacks that have been made on 
us. It was at once indorsed by the great men and the 
small, the upstarts and doctors, of the denomination, 
and its merits heralded all over the land. Their spirits 
rose high, their old bigotry revived, their subsiding ill 
feelings flowed back, they again chuckled at their ima- 
ginary superiority, and thanked God, in true Pharisaic 
style, that they were not as other men. These are a 
few of the effects the work has had. It is due, how- 
ever, to many a noble man in the Baptist ranks, (for 
there are many there,) to express the belief that the 
contents of this book do not enjoy the sanction of all 
who are even Baptists, nor its appearance at this par- 
ticular time their approbation. 

On the other side, the insulting spirit of the book, 
its paltry contents, but especially the indorsement of 
the denomination it has received, have only served to 
excite in our ranks feelings of mingled pity and deep 
disgust at the whole thing, and to make us wish that 
in all time to come we may grow less like the Baptists, 
who have sanctioned the work, than we now are ; and 
to pray that the disastrous event may never happen 
when we shall be one people, provided its spirit and 



■Voi 






REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 297 

contents shall be made the basis of the union. These 
are a few of the effects to be ascribed to Mr. Jeter's 
book; and with the simple statement of them we now 
take leave of both him and it, feeling that in the one 
we part from a misguided man, in the other from a 
graceless thing. 



THE END. 



B. UPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



LIPPINCOTT'S 

PRONOUNCING 

mimm m m world, 

GEOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY 

above 20,000 more Geographical Notices than are 
found in any other Gazetteer of the World 

EDITED BY J. THOMAS, M.D., and T. BALDWIN, 

Assisted by several other Gentlemen. 

TESTIMONIALS. 

M This wnrk h** h. i?V -° W ,*** 5bw ' ^ward Everett. 

tainty. but it is treated with great ahilitt 5 "f nded Wlth some difficulty and uncer- 
Introduction. I have no dojbt ™?r & !2 m a -X e 7 satlsfa ctory manner, in your 
work, well calculated to supply a want wh.^mLTL 1 be K found a » extremely useful 
every class of readers." PP * " Whlch must have bee » severely felt by alnwst 

particularly in relation to XnunSion V^ly^n^™™* G * mtt °£' ™re 
generally, m what is said by the Hon Edward ^fcp^V\^ pre f ln?aconcurr « n ^. 
of the work The difficult subject of tl?e nronnnH.H ' f f the Va,Ue L and excellence 
pears to me to have been attended to with 2?"JJ 10n of r eo ? ra Phical names ap- 
ment; and this feature of^a^ »and jud|- 

" I irnn«, «r „ n ^0™ the Hon. Robert C. Winthrov 
-ate with the magnitude and Snts of the ^ uffiakfng" 8 ° me degree ct,mm e™- 

A^^ASM^ - * — °p on, 

*«. «•<,/. C. A. GoodrtcH, *«*.<»£ mitor of'Xevi^Mition'. of Web- 
importance to Teachers." 7 wise, y directed. I consider it as of great 

1 wsh yoa the success which y?u so Trichly dServeT ^ Md eeBeral » ccnra <=r. 



28 J. B. UPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 

LIPPINCOTT'S CABINET HISTORIES OF THE STATES, 

BY. T. S. ARTHUR and WM. H. CARPENTER. 
FIRST SERIES OF TWELVE VOLUMES ALREADY COMPLETE, 

COMPRISING THE HISTORY OF 

Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, Penn- 
sylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, 
Illinois. 
Each History complete in one 12mo vol. of from 230 to 350 pages. 



EXTRACTS FROM NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 

"For School Libraries, and indeed for all Libraries, the Series will be found of great 
value."— Buffalo Daily Courier. 

"They are eminently adapted both to interest and instruct, and should have a place 
in the Family Library of every American." — New York Courier and Enquirer. 

" They contain the very pith and marrow of the record from the earliest periods 
down to the present time."— Albany Express. 

'As a work for the young we know of none more suitable to put into their hands." 
—Detroit Daily Advertiser. 

1 They should be read by all who would know the annals of our country, and the wild 
leeends on which our future epics and histories are to be built." — Louisiana Courier. 

* Thousands of persons, old as well as young, will be tempted to read such volumes 
as these, and thus get a general knowledge of the history of the several States."— 
Boston Traveller. 

"The value of such a Series cannot be too highly estimated."— American Courier. 

" We predict great popularity for the Series."— Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. 

"This will be of great practical value in extending a history of the individual 
States."— Boston Journal. 

Price per volume, 42 cents. 



New Themes for the Protestant Clergy; 

CREEDS WITHOUT CHARITY, THEOLOGY WITHOUT HUMANITY, AND 
PROTESTANTISM WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY. 

With Notes by the Editor on the Literature of Charity, Population, Pauper- 
ism, Political Economy, and Protestantism. 
PRICE, OJSE DOLLAR. 



SIMPSON'S MILITARY JOURNAL. 

JOURNAL OF A MILITARY RECONNOISSANCE FROM SANTA FE, 
NEW MEXICO, TO THE NAVAJO COUNTRY, 

BY JAMES H. SIMPSON, A. M., 

i"IRSr LIEUTENANT CORPS OF TOPOGRAPHICAL ENGINEERS. 

WITH 75 COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS. 

One volume, octavo. Price, Three Dollars. 



CATALOGUE 

OF 

VALUABLE BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED BY 

1 B. LIPPINCOTT & CO., 

(LATE LIPPINCOTT, GRAMBO & CO.) 

No. 20 NOBTH FOTOTH STREET, PHILADELPHIA; 

CONSISTIHG OF A LARGE ASSORTMENT OF 

BIBLES, PRAYER-BOOKS, COMMENTARIES, STANOARD POETS, 
MEDICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKS, ETC. 

PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR 

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES; 

For Sale by Booksellers and Country Merchants generally 

throughout the United States. 



THE BEST AND MOST C OMPLET E FAMILY COMMENTARY, 

The Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Bible; 

CONTAINING 

THE TEXT ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION, 

SCOTT'S MARGINAL REFERENCES; MATTHEW HENRY'S COMMEN- 
TARY, CONDENSED, BUT CONTAINING EVERY USEFUL 
THOUGHT; THE PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS OF 
REV. THOMAS SCOTT, D.D.; 

WITH EXTENSIVE 

EXPLANATORY, CRITICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL NOTES, 
Selected from Scott, Doddridge, Gill, Adam Clarke, Patrick, Poole, Lowth. 
Burder, Harmer, Calmet, Rosenmueller, Bloomfield, Stuart, Bush, Dwteht 
and many other writers on the Scriptures. "wigni, 

•J^ 7™ designed to be a digest and combination of the advantage* of 
the best Bible Commentaries, and embracing nearly all that is valuaUe in 

HENRY, SCOTT, AND DODDRIGE. 

EDITED BY REV. WILLIAM JENKS, D. D., 

PASTOR OP GREEN STREET CHURCH, BOSTON. 

Embellished with five portraits, and other elegant engravings, from steel 
Jlatea; with several maps and many wood-cuts, illustrative of Scriptuw 
Manners, Customs, Antiquities, &c. In 6 vols, super-royal 8vo 
Including Supplement, bound in cloth, sheep, calf, Ac., varying in 
Price from $10 to $15* 

The whole forming the most valuable as well as the cheapest Comment 
ary in the world. 

(1) 



I. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



\t CnrapauiMt tu t|u 2HkU. 

In one super-royal volume. 

DESIGNED TO ACCOMPANY 

THE FAMILY BIBLE; 

OR, 

HENRY'S, SCOTT'S, CLARKE'S, GILL'S, OR OTHER COMMENTARIES. 

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, 

In one super-royal volume. 

DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM THE MANNERS, CUSTOMS, ANTIQUITIES 

TRADITIONS AND FORMS OF SPEECH, RTTES. CLIMATE, WORKS 

OF ART, AND LITERATURE OF THE EASTERN NATIONS: 

EMBODYING ALL THAT 18 VALUABLE IN THE WORKS OP 

ROBERTS, HAPMER, BURDER, PAXTON, CHANDLER, 

And the most celebrated Oriental travellers. Embracing also the subject 

of the Fulfilment of Prophecy, as exhibited by Keith and others; 

with descriptions of the present state of countries and 

places mentioned in the Sacred Writings. 
ILLUSTRATED bV NUMEROUS LANDSCAPE ENGRAVINGS, 

FROM SKETCHES TAKEN ON THE SPOT. 

EDI'iED BY REV. GEORGE BUSH, 

Prof, of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in the N. Y. City University. 

THE ILLUSTRATED CONCORDANCE, 

In one volume, royal 8vo. 
A new, full, and complete Concordance; illustrated with monumental, 
traditional, and oriental engravings, founded on Butterworth s, with Uru- 
den's definitions; form'ng, it is believed, on many accounts, a .more valu- 
able work than either Butterworth, Cruden, or any other similar boot ID 
the language. 

LIPPINCCTT'S STANDARD EDITIONS OF 

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER} 

IN SIX DIFFERENT SIZES, 

ILLUSTRATED W7TH A NUMBER OF STEEL PLATES ANT 
ILLUMINATIONS. 
OOMPEBHBNDING ^HE MOST VARIED AND SPLENDID ASSORT- 
MENT IN THE UNITED STATES. 



J, B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



LIPPINCOTT'S EDITIONS OP 

THE HOLY BIBLE, 

SIX DIFFERENT SIZES. 

Printed in the best manner, with beautiful type, on the finest sized paper, 
and bound in the most splendid and substantial styles. Warranted to be oor- 
rect, and equal to the best English editions, at a much lower price. To b» 
had with or without plates ; the publishers having supplied themselves with 
over fifty steel engravings, by the first artists. 

Baxter's Comprehensive Bible, 

Royal quarto, containing the various readings and marginal notes, disquW 
sitions on the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the Holy Scrip- 
tures; introductory and concluding remarks to each book; philological and 
explanatory notes; tables of contents, arranged in historical order; a chro- 
nological index, and various other matter ; forming a suitable book for the 
study of clergymen, Sabbath-school teachers and students. 

The Oxford Quarto Bible, 

Without note or comment, universally admitted to be the most beautiful 
family Bible extant. 

Crown Octavo Bible, 

Printed with large clear type, making a most convenient Bible 
for family use. 

Polyglot Bible* 

The Sunday-School Teacher's Polyglot Bible, with Maps, &c 

The Oxford 18 mo. Bible* 

This is an extremely handsome and convenient Pew Bible. 

Agate 32 mo. Bible, 

Printed with larger type than any other small pocket edition extant. 

32mo. Diamond Pocket Bible, 

The neatest, smallest, and cheapest edition of the Bible published. 



CONSTANTLY ON HAND, 

A large assortment of BIBLES, bound in the most splendid and costly 
styles, with gold and silver ornaments, suitable for presentation; ranging 
in price from $10 00 fee $100 00. 

A liberal discount made to Booksellers and Agents by the Publishers. 



ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE; 

LY OF THE BIBLE THEOLOGY, RELIGIO 
GIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, AND 

In one volume, royal Svo 



OR, DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE THEOLOGY, RELIGIOUS BIOGRAPHY 
ALL RELIGIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, AND MISSIONS. 



* ). B. UPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 

JOSEPHUS'S (FLAVIUS) WORKS, 

FAMILY EDITION. 

BY THE LATE WM. WHISTON, A. M. 

FROM THE LAST LONDON EDITION, COMPLETE. 

One volume, beautifully illustrated with Steel Plates, and the only readable 
edition published in this country. 

FAMILY PRAYERS AND HYMNS, 

ADAPTED TO FAMILY WORSHIP, 

AND 

TABLES FOR THE REGULAR READING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

BY REV. S. C. WINCHESTER, A.M. 

Late Pastor of the Sixth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia ; and the 

Presbyterian Church at Natchez, Miss. 

One volume, 12mo. 

djli Cltrgij af liJimra: 

CONSISTING OF 

ANFCDOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CHARACTER OF MINISTERS OF 

RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

BYJOSEPH BELCHER, D.D., 

Editor of " The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller," " Robert Hall," <fcc 
One volume, 12mo. 

THeHpILG^^ 

BY JOHN BUNYAN. 

With a Portrait and Memoir of the Author, and twenty-five Ilia* 
rations, from Original Designs. One vol. I8mo. 50 cents. 

fJnriur'a Siting? inmnns, 

Or, 10) Plain and Short Discourses on the Principal Doctrines of the Gospel 

INTENDED FOR THE USE OF FAMILIES, SUNDAY-SCHOOLS. 
OR COMPANIES ASSEMBLED FOR RELIGIOUS IN- 
STRUCTION IN COUNTRY VILLAGES. 
BY GEORGE BURDER. 
•Do which is added t& each Sermon, a Short Prayer, with some General 
Prayers for Families, Schools, &c, at the end of the work. 

COMPLETE, IN ONE VOLUME. OCTAVO. 



B. LIPPINCOTT &, CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



SPLENDID LIBRARY EDITIONS. 

ILLUSTRATED STANDARD POETS. 

BLEGANTLY PRINTED, ON FINE PAPER, AND UNIFORM IN 8IZB 
AND STYLE. 



The following Editions of Standard British Poets are illustrated with name. 
rous Steel Engravings, and may be had in all varieties of binding. 

BYRON'S WORKS. 

COMPLETE, IN ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO. 

INCLUDING ALL HIS SUPPRESSED AND ATTRIBUTED POEMS- WITH SIX 

BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS 



THE POETICAL WORKS OF MRS. HEMANS. 

COMPLETE, IN ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO ; WITH SEVEN 
BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. 



MILTON, YOUNG, GRAY, BEATTIE, AND COLLINS'S 
POETICAL WORKS. 

COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME, OCAVO. 
WITH SIX BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. 



€mpt nirtr ^ratBmr*B fmuvb fmtml Wntks. 

COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO. 

Including : two hundred and fifty Letters, and sundry Poems of Cowner 

never before published in this country ; and a new and interesting M* 

moir of Thomson, and upward, of twenty new Poems, printed 

for the first time, from his own Manuscripts, taken 

from a late Edition of the Airline Poets, now 

being published in London. 

WITH SEVEN BEAUFIFUI ENGRAVINGS, 



6 j. B. LIPPirJOOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 

THE POETICAL WORKS OF ROGERS, CAMPBELL, MONT 
GOMERY, LAMB, AND KIRKE WHITE. 

COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO. 

WITH SIX BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. 



CRABBE, HEBER, AND POLLOK'S POETICAL WORKS. 

COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO. 
WITH SIX BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. 

No Library can be considered complete without a copy of the above beau 
tiful and cheap editions of the English Poets ; and persons ordering all or 
&uy of them, will please say, Lipplncott, Grambo & Co.'s illustrated edition. 

A COMPLETE 

$)trtiimitn{ af ^rotiral dUnntattnns : 

">MPR1SING THE MOST EXCELLENT AND APPROPRIATE PASSAGES IN 

THE OLD BRITISH POETS ; WITH CHOICE AND COPIOUS SELECTIONS 

FROM THE BEST MODERN BRITISH AND AMERICAN POETS 

EDITED BY SARAH JOSEFHA HALE. 

As nightingales do upon glow-worms feed, 
So poets live upon the living light 
Of Nature and of Beauty. 

Bailey's Festtu. 

Beautifully illuistrated with Engravings. In one super-royal octavo 
volume, in various bindings. 

THE DIAMOND EDITION OF BYRON. 



THE POETICAL WORKS OF LORD BYRON. 

WITH A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE. 

COMPLETE IN ONE NEAT DUODECIMO VOLUME, WITH 8TEEL PLATES. 



THE POETICAL WORKS OF THOMAS MOORE, 

COLLECTED BY HIMSELF. 

COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME. 

This work is published uniform with Byron, from the last London edition, 
and ia the most complete printed in the country. 



,, B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



THE DIAMOND EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE. 

(complete in one volume.) 
INCLUDING A COPIOUS GLOSSARY. 

UNIFORM WITH BYRON AND MOORE. 
THE FOREGOING WORKS CAN BE HAD IN SEVERAL VARIETIES OF BINDING. 



SCHOOLCRAFT'S GREAT NATIONAL WORK ON THE INDIAN TRIBES Of 
THE UNITED STATES. 

WITH BEAUTIFUL AND ACCURATE COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS. 



HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION 

RESPECTING THE 

HISTORY, CONDITION AND PROSPECTS 

OF THE 

Sitffi € rihs nf tjjr gritti ftabs. 

COLLECTED AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION (4 HE BUREAD 
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, PER ACT OF MARCH 3, 18 

BIT HENR7 R. SCHOOLGEAFT, !■ ,D. 
ILLUSTRATED BY S. EASTMAN, Capt. U. 8. A, 

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. 



THRaUGH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CANADA, ETC 

CONTAINING THE ROUTES OF TRAVEL BY STEAMBOAT, STAGE, AND 

CANAL; TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF, AND ROUTES TO. 

THE PRINCIPAL PLACES OF FASHIONABLE AND HEALTHFUL 

RESORT; WITH OTHER VALUABLE INFORMATION. 

ACCOMPANIED BY 

AN ENTIRELY NEW AND AUTHENTIC MAP OF THE UNITED STATES, 

IN CLUDLNG CALIFORNIA, OREGON, Ac, AND A MAP OY THE 
ISLAND OF CUBA. 

BY W. WILLIAMS. 



J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 



THE POWER AND PROGRESSJF THE UNITED STATES, 

THE UNITED STATES : Its Power and Progress 

BY G-UILLAUME TELL POUSSIN, 

LATE MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. 
FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD PARIS EDITION. 

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH BY EDMOND L. DU BARRY, M.D. 

SURGEON, UNITED STATES NAVY. 
IN ONE LARGE OCTAVO VOLUME. 



BIGLAND'S NATURAL HISTORY. 

OF ANIMALS, BIRDS, PISHES, REPTILES, AND INSECTS 

ILLUSTRATED WITH NUMEROUS AND BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. 

BY JOHN BIGLAND, 

Author of a " View of the World," " Letters on Universal History," Ac. 

Complete in one volume, 12mo. 



GOLDSMITH'S ANIMATED NATURE. 

IN TWO VOLUMES, OCTAVO. 

BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED WITH 385 PLATES. 

CONTAINING A HISTORY OF THE EARTH, ANIMALS, BIRDS AND 

FISHES; FORMING THE MOST COMPLETE NATURAL 

HISTORY EVER PUBLISHED. 



|tn's $p0nl %\iaU%%. 

A SYNOPSIS OF THE THEOLOGY OF PETER DENS 

AS PREPARED FOR THE USE OF 

ROMISH SEMINARIES AND STUDENTS OF THEOLOGY. 

Translated from the Latin of the Mechlin Edition, 1838, 

BY JOSEPH BERG-, 

Formerly Professor of Latin and Greek in Marshall Collage. 

ONE VOLUME. 12MO. $1. 



347 7 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



